The Jere Beasley Report August 2026

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Bipartisan Bill Aims To Strengthen Social Media Safety For Children

U.S. Senators Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Jon Husted (R-Ohio), and Mark Warner (D-Va.) have introduced Sammy’s Law, a bipartisan measure aimed at giving parents more tools to protect children on social media. The legislation would require large social media platforms to allow FTC-regulated third-party safety providers to send alerts to parents when certain online interactions indicate potential risks, including drug activity, cyberbullying, suicidal ideation, eating disorders, or sexual exploitation. The bill is named in memory of Sammy Chapman, a 16-year-old who died after unknowingly ingesting fentanyl obtained through a social media connection.

This legislation is intended to help prevent tragedies linked to online harms by improving parental awareness and intervention. The bill has received backing from numerous child safety and advocacy organizations, as well as families who have lost children to fentanyl poisoning, sextortion, and cyberbullying. Katie Britt, who has made youth mental health and online safety a legislative priority, says the proposal is designed to give parents greater visibility into their children’s online activity while holding social media platforms more accountable for protecting young users. Hopefully, this bill will pass and become law. It’s badly needed. Katie is taking the lead on behalf of children. She is able to work with Democrats in this effort. We need more of this sort of “working together” in Washington.

Source: Office of U.S. Sen. Katie Britt

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Social Media Trial

In March, the first social media addiction trial that resulted in a jury verdict for the plaintiff against Meta and Google got national attention. The second bellwether trial, involving a plaintiff known by his initials R.K.C. and originally scheduled to begin July 27, has since resolved short of trial. TikTok, YouTube, and Snap all settled their claims with R.K.C., and Meta was dismissed from the case.

The next personal injury bellwether trials are set to begin October 27, involving three plaintiffs — S.J., P.M.Y., and K.D.B. — in separate trials sharing the same start date.

R.K.C. was to follow a plaintiff named Kaley, whose case was tried in Los Angeles Superior Court from January 27 to March 25. The jury found in that case that Meta’s and Google’s actions in designing their platforms substantially contributed to Kaley’s mental health injuries, including anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia. R.K.C. had brought similar claims, alleging that the platforms were designed to keep him online as long as possible, to the point of addiction, substantially contributing to anxiety, body dysmorphia, suicidal ideation, eating disorders, and depression with which he suffers.

In a notable victory for the plaintiffs, Judge Carolyn Kuhl had previously ruled that although the social media companies could not be liable for users’ injuries caused by specific content on the platforms, they could be liable for choices they made in designing the platforms and their features, and whether they operate to addict users like Kaley and R.K.C.

Jurors deliberated for ten days in Kaley’s case, but not before hearing hours of testimony from experts and witnesses, including Kaley and Meta heads Mark Zuckerburg and Adam Mosseri, and reviewing a huge amount of academic research on whether social media can cause addiction.

Judge Orders Zuckerberg To Testify Again In Social Media Addiction Trial

Prior to the resolution of the R.K.C case, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl had ruled that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg must again testify in person at trial. Judge Kuhl rejected Meta’s argument that Zuckerberg’s previously recorded deposition should be used instead of live testimony. The judge also ordered Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel to testify in person.

The order originally arose in connection with the trial involving plaintiff R.K.C., which had been set to begin July 27. That case has since resolved — so the executives will not testify in July, but plaintiffs anticipate they will testify in the October trials.

The ruling follows the landmark bellwether trial earlier this year in which a jury awarded $6 million against Meta, Google and YouTube. During that trial, Zuckerberg underwent a full day of questioning and faced scrutiny over Meta’s practices and public statements regarding user safety.

Judge Kuhl also authorized the testimony of Zuckerberg, Mosseri and Spiegel to be recorded for use in future proceedings, a move that could reduce the need for repeated live appearances.

Beasley Allen’s Davis Vaughn, who represented the plaintiff in R.K.C., argued that California law does not require the testimony to be “new or unique” to justify calling corporate executives as live witnesses. Meta had contended that further live testimony is unnecessary because the executives have already been extensively questioned in depositions and prior proceedings.

We expect the outcome of the upcoming October bellwether trials to influence thousands of similar lawsuits alleging social media companies designed products that foster compulsive use among young users.

R.K.C. was represented by Emily Jeffcott of Morgan & Morgan, Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea Ravipudi, Davis Vaughn and Joseph VanZandt of Beasley Allen, Rachel Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm, and Mariana McConnell of Kiesel Law LLP.

The case R.K.C. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 23STCV31485, and the JCCP case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255, both in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Source: Law360

Judge Signals Broad Evidence Will Be Allowed In Landmark Attorneys General Social Media Addiction Trial

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the federal judge overseeing the nationwide social media addiction litigation, indicated she is likely to reject most efforts by both sides to limit evidence ahead of the first bellwether trial against Meta. At press time this case was scheduled to begin this month.

During a lengthy pretrial hearing, the judge criticized both Meta and the states for filing overly broad evidentiary motions. She reserved final rulings but suggested most requests would be denied, emphasizing that many of the disputed issues should be decided at trial rather than excluded beforehand.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers was particularly critical of Meta’s extensive efforts to seal court records, calling the volume of sealing requests “shocking” and “ridiculous” and indicating that most of the requested materials will remain public.

The upcoming trial will feature claims brought by Attorneys General from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey. The states allege that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram with addictive features—including notifications, autoplay, and infinite scrolling—that contribute to compulsive use among young people. Meta denies the allegations.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers also questioned Meta’s attempts to exclude evidence related to platform design, internal research, and potential harms to users. She suggested that evidence regarding what Meta knew about the effects of its products and what it communicated to the public could be relevant to the states’ claims.

The ruling keeps the case on track for the bellwether trial and marks a significant development in the growing effort to hold social media companies accountable for the impact their platforms may have on children and teens.

This trial is the first bellwether proceeding in the multidistrict litigation, which includes claims from states, school districts, tribes, and individual plaintiffs seeking to hold social media companies accountable for harms allegedly linked to addictive platform design.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that key factual disputes remain, including whether social media addiction exists as a legitimate condition and whether Meta misled the public about the addictive nature of its platforms. The court also allowed claims challenging Meta’s platform design to move forward, citing evidence that features such as notifications, autoplay, and infinite scroll may encourage compulsive use among young users.

In a notable victory for the states, the judge found that Meta failed to comply with certain notice and parental consent requirements under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), although questions about liability remain for trial.

The multidistrict litigation includes claims from states, school districts, tribes, and individual plaintiffs who allege social media companies prioritized profits over user safety by designing products that maximize engagement. This trial is first bellwether trial in the nationwide social media addiction litigation. The states are represented by their respective attorneys general.

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

Source: Law360

Meta Pushes Back On States’ $1.4 Trillion Penalty Demand In Social Media MDL

Meta is challenging a proposed $1.4 trillion penalty sought by California, Colorado, New Jersey, and Kentucky in the ongoing social media addiction litigation. Meta claims calculation is excessive and disconnected from the states’ consumer protection claims.

The dispute comes ahead of the August 12 advisory jury trial in California, where the states allege Meta designed Instagram and Facebook with addictive features that harmed minors’ mental health and well-being. According to Meta, the states’ penalty model improperly counts every teenage user and every month a teen spends more than 30 minutes on a Meta platform, resulting in what the company calls an inflated figure.

Meta also argues that many of the features at issue—such as notifications, likes, and infinite scrolling—are protected under Section 230 of the Communications Act, which shields online platforms from liability for certain content-related claims. The company contends the states’ case centers on alleged misrepresentations about whether its platforms were designed to be addictive, not on the platforms themselves.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in support of the lawsuit, says that the case alleges Meta prioritized profits over children’s safety and contributed to a growing youth mental health crisis. State attorneys have indicated they are seeking penalties based on individual statutory violations and, alternatively, the disgorgement of profits.

The proceeding this month is the first major bellwether trial in the multidistrict litigation pending in federal court in Oakland, California. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will use an advisory jury to evaluate state consumer protection claims, while separately considering claims brought under the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

The broader litigation includes lawsuits filed by numerous states, school districts, Native American tribes, and individual plaintiffs who allege social media companies knowingly designed products that encourage excessive use among young people.

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general.

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

Source: Law360

Meta Can’t Block States’ Damages Expert In Addiction Trial

In a significant victory for the state plaintiffs, a federal judge refused to exclude testimony from damages expert Carl Saba in litigation alleging that Meta intentionally designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to young users. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers held that most of Meta’s challenges go to the weight of Saba’s opinions, not their admissibility, allowing the jury to hear key evidence supporting the states’ damages claims.

The court also rejected Meta’s effort to use Section 230 as a shield, reaffirming that the states’ claims focus on Meta’s own conduct and platform design decisions rather than third-party content. Judge Rogers found that Meta’s attacks on Saba’s methodology, including his reliance on Meta’s internal surveys and analyses of teen usage, are issues for cross-examination and rebuttal, not grounds for excluding his testimony.

Importantly, the court upheld Saba’s disgorgement opinions, finding that plaintiffs need not tie profits to specific instances of misconduct or user exposure. Instead, the judge recognized that evidence showing Meta engaged in unlawful conduct that increased teen engagement and generated profits could support recovery.

The ruling also narrowed testimony from Meta’s rebuttal expert, Justin McCrary. While McCrary may challenge assumptions underlying Saba’s analysis, the court ruled that he cannot offer causation opinions or provide substantive commentary on third-party research outside his area of expertise.

The decision clears the way for the states to present critical damages evidence at trial, which is scheduled to begin August 18 as part of the broader social media addiction multidistrict litigation. Plaintiffs allege that Meta knowingly prioritized profits over the health and well-being of children and teenagers by designing features intended to maximize user engagement and dependence.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media 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.

If you need more information on the ongoing social media litigation or need help with a case, contact Melissa Prickett, Director of our Mass Torts Section, and she will have a lawyer on the Litigation Team contact you.

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

Visa And Mastercard Reach $38 Billion Settlement In Long-Running Swipe Fee Litigation

After nearly two decades of litigation, Visa and Mastercard have agreed to a proposed $38 billion settlement resolving claims that the payment giants charged merchants excessive credit and debit card “swipe fees.”

The settlement, which received preliminary approval from a federal judge, covers an estimated 12 million merchants. As part of the agreement, Visa and Mastercard will temporarily reduce interchange fees and provide merchants with greater flexibility in deciding which card products they will accept.

Supporters of the settlement say the fee reductions could save retailers billions of dollars over the coming years and may eventually help lower costs for consumers. The settlement could also weaken the long-standing “honor all cards” rule, potentially allowing businesses to decline certain higher-cost rewards credit cards.

However, the agreement continues to face criticism from a number of merchant groups. Opponents argue the proposed changes do not go far enough to address what they view as an unfair payment system and contend that the settlement could ultimately leave merchants with limited options. Several business advocacy organizations have indicated they may continue to challenge the settlement agreement before it receives final court approval.

The settlement represents one of the largest antitrust-related resolutions in U.S. history. Reportedly it could reshape the relationship between merchants and the nation’s dominant card networks.

Source: AL.com

TALC LITIGATION

$5.5 Billion Talc Settlement Delivers Long-Awaited Justice

Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay $5.5 billion to resolve roughly 70,000 ovarian cancer lawsuits alleging its talcum powder products caused cancer. This is one of the largest mass tort settlements in recent years. The agreement is contingent on at least 95% participation from remaining plaintiffs. We will keep you updated on this matter.

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

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

Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, Ryan Beattie, David Dearing, Liz Achtemeier, Jennifer Emmel, Caty O’Quinn, Leanna Pittard, Matt Teague, Margaret Thompson, Kelli Alfreds, Alexa Wallace, Cristina Rodriguez and Brittany Scott.

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune Justice Act: Where Claims Stand And Why Action Matters

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), enacted in August 2022 as part of the PACT Act, created a path for veterans, family members, and others exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune to seek compensation for related illnesses. The law was intended to address decades of harm caused by exposure to toxic chemicals in the base’s water supply. Yet, nearly four years later, the claims process remains slow and difficult for many claimants.

More than 408,000 administrative claims have been filed with the Department of the Navy. According to the Department of Justice, settlement payouts exceeded $723 million as of June 15, 2026, but that progress represents only a small fraction of the total claims filed.

Thousands of lawsuits are pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and the first bellwether trials have been delayed repeatedly.

Several factors have contributed to the delay. Claimants must first pursue an administrative claim before filing suit. Once in court, the litigation has involved expert discovery, motions practice, disputes over scientific modeling, and scheduling issues. The government has also challenged plaintiffs’ experts and sought to narrow the evidence that claimants may rely on. As a result, many people who are elderly or seriously ill continue waiting for resolution.

The Elective Option (EO) settlement program offers standardized payments based on qualifying illnesses and length of exposure. While the EO may provide a faster path for some claimants, not everyone qualifies, and many advocates have criticized the offer amounts as too low when compared to the seriousness of the injuries and the length of the wait.

Congress is considering legislation that could change the course of the litigation. The Ensuring Justice for Camp Lejeune Victims Act of 2025 would amend the CLJA to clarify claimants’ rights, including the right to request a jury trial, expand where cases may be heard, and help move claims toward faster resolution. The bill has bipartisan support, but it remains in committee at press time.

Claimants and their families can help by contacting their federal senators and representatives and urging them to support reforms that restore meaningful access to justice. Key priorities include protecting the right to a jury trial, creating a dedicated compensation fund, preserving veterans’ ability to recover, eliminating benefit offsets, and preventing third-party insurers from delaying or reducing recoveries through subrogation claims.

Anyone reaching out to Congress should share a personal story whenever possible: time spent at Camp Lejeune, the illness or loss connected to the exposure, the length of the wait, and the impact on family and daily life. Constituent calls, letters, emails, and meetings with district staff are logged and can influence whether legislation advances.

For those persons with pending claims, it remains important to keep medical records, proof of residence or service, contact information, and health updates current. The CLJA was passed to provide justice to people harmed by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. Continued public pressure and legislative action may be necessary to ensure that promise is fulfilled.

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Litigation Team

The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of our Camp Lejeune Litigation Team: Jeff Price, Ryan Kral, William Sutton, Tucker Osborne, Elizabeth Walden, Travis Chin, Saima Khan, Wesley Merillat, Miland Simpler, Khadiga Carr, Will Jones, Connor Chase, Sarah Grace Strength, and Rylee Buzbee.

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

The lawyers on our litigation team are available and would be honored to work with other law firms on their claims. Our lawyers will be available to answer any questions you may have 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.

SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION

Feds Launch A Crackdown On Teacher Sexual Misconduct

The federal government has launched a national crackdown on how school districts handle accusations of sexual misconduct by teachers. We will take a look at this segment of the litigation.

In guidance issued last month, the Department of Education reported that California’s teacher licensing agency has not revoked the professional credentials of at least 67 educators whose school districts determined had sexually harassed students or committed other types of sexual misconduct. At least 14 of those educators were rehired by other schools.

The Department of Education threatened to withhold federal funding from public schools that fail to protect children from teacher sexual misconduct. The feds called on states and school districts to scrutinize their laws and regulations to prevent educators who have engaged in sexual misconduct involving students from obtaining new positions elsewhere. Citing previous reports by the Government Accountability Office and other studies, the Department of Education reports it has observed a “troubling and recurring pattern” of credible reports of sexual abuse and harassment by school employees going uninvestigated.

“Unfortunately, many administrators and State educational regulators have apparently preferred to sweep these incidents under the rug and have ‘pass[ed] the trash’ to another school,” the department wrote in an open letter to state schools’ chiefs last month, referring to teachers who go on to work in different schools after findings of sexual misconduct.

The Department of Education intends to increase its monitoring of school systems to ensure that they comply with federal law and will also examine states’ laws and regulations to determine their effectiveness in protecting students.

The department claims it is investigating 20 school districts over their data collection practices and handling of allegations of staff sexual harassment of students. The list also includes districts in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

Sexual misconduct in the education world must be confronted aggressively. The government cannot be the only protection from this type of behavior. Fortunately, we live in a country that provides a civil justice system as an immediate remedy to address someone’s rights being violated, including sexual misconduct by people in positions of trust who breach that trust. Beasley Allen lawyers have handled many such cases and stand ready to protect victims of sexual misconduct in schools, the workplace and other environments where protections are mandated.

Should you have a situation where you or a family member has been a victim of sexual misconduct in any fashion, Beasley Allen lawyers are ready to provide legal counsel to help remedy those situations. Contact Leon Hampton or Lauren Miles. They will be glad to work with you.

Source : Propublica

VIDEO GAMING LITIGATION

Arbitration Issue At Forefront Of Video Game Addiction Hearing

A judge in Los Angeles is currently deciding whether three major gaming companies can push a childhood gaming addiction lawsuit out of court and into private arbitration.

The decision was not announced immediately. It will follow the extended hearing. The judge reserved his ruling for later. This lawsuit is part of a much larger legal battle — over a hundred related cases have been filed making similar claims against gaming companies.

The specific plaintiff, a mother, filed suit on behalf of her young son over what she describes as a gaming addiction caused by products made by Epic Games, Roblox, and Microsoft. According to her filing, the addiction has caused her son to struggle emotionally, withdraw socially, and act out behaviorally.

The plaintiff contends the companies built their games to keep children playing as long as possible in order to boost revenue from purchases made within the games, and that they skipped adding protective features like usage limits or parental oversight tools.

When the three companies asked the court to send the case to arbitration instead of litigation, the plaintiff resisted. Their argument rested on a legal test that came out of a 2021 California appeals court ruling. That test works in three stages: a company must

first demonstrate that an arbitration agreement actually exists; the other party can then dispute that the agreement is genuine — for instance, by stating under oath that they have no memory of accepting it; and if that happens, the company must come back with solid proof that a legitimate agreement was truly formed.

The plaintiff in the case took the position that neither she nor her son could recall ever agreeing to arbitrate anything, and that it’s essentially impossible to know for certain who was controlling an account or accepting terms at any specific moment — it could have been the child, a parent, or someone else. They also raised the argument that a parent’s acceptance of terms shouldn’t automatically extend to bind their child under California law.

Lawyers for the defendants said there was no legal precedent supporting the concept that uncertainty about who clicked “accept” should invalidate an agreement. They maintained that click-through agreements are a long-recognized, enforceable way of forming contracts online. Further, they cautioned that weakening that principle could destabilize digital commerce more broadly.

No decision on the arbitration issue had been made at press time. Thus, the arbitration question remains open. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Chad Cook.

Shareholders Accuse Roblox Leadership Of Overselling Growth Ahead Of Age-Verification Fallout

A newly filed shareholder lawsuit accuses Roblox Corp. leadership of talking up the company’s financial outlook even as trouble brewed from its age-verification rollout –trouble that, once disclosed, wiped out billions in market value in a single day.

Shareholder Saurav Mukherjee filed the proposed class action on June 8, 2026, in the Northern District of California, naming Roblox, CEO David Baszucki, and CFO Naveen Chopra. The case is Mukherjee v. Roblox Corp. et al., No. 3:26-cv-05489 (N.D. Cal.).

The complaint alleges that in late 2025 and early 2026, the executives indicated user growth would offset any drag from new age checks. They backed that up with guidance projecting 22%–26% bookings growth for the year and touted age-verification and AI spending as long-term value drivers.

On April 30, 2026, Roblox reported first-quarter earnings that fell well short of that guidance. Leadership disclosed weaker-than-expected adoption of age verification, reduced platform messaging, and falling app store ratings. Chopra also admitted a monetization skew in Roblox’s recommendation algorithm was likely hurting signups and satisfaction. Full-year guidance was slashed to 8%–12%, and Roblox stock fell from $55.26 to $45.13 overnight — an 18% loss that triggered analyst downgrades.

Mukherjee alleges the executives knew their earlier guidance was unrealistic and can’t hide behind “forward-looking statement” protections for numbers they already knew were inflated. Roblox continues to face litigation on other fronts, including cases brought by our firm alleging the company’s safety measures have failed to adequately protect children from adult predators on the platform.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Leighton Johnson, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section. She will be glad to work with you.

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

$56 Million Georgia Trucking Wrongful Death Settlement

Beasley Allen has reached a more than $56 million settlement in a wrongful death case stemming from a fatal interstate trucking collision in Georgia. The settlement resolves claims arising from a crash that claimed the life of a young woman who was on her way to care for a family member when her life was taken. We believe this is one of the largest wrongful death pre-trial settlements in Georgia history involving a commercial vehicle. In fact, it may well be the largest.

The collision occurred when a commercial truck made an unsafe lane change, striking the victim’s vehicle and setting off a chain of events that ultimately led to the death of the driver. The case involved extensive investigation and litigation, including a detailed analysis of onboard video, driver conduct, and company safety practices that pointed to a preventable crash.

The Beasley Allen trial team built the case methodically over multiple years. The strategy was to be patient, document the truth, and let the defendants’ own conduct tell the story. Chris Glover, who heads up our Atlanta office says, the legal strategy focused on uncovering the full truth and building a clear, evidence-driven case. Chris says:

This case was about following the evidence wherever it led. We worked to show exactly how this crash occurred and why it could have been avoided. The result reflects both the strength of that evidence and the value of the life that was taken.

At its core, the case centered on the life that was lost. The victim was known for her deep faith and her commitment to serving others—from volunteering in her community to supporting her church. Her family described her as someone who consistently gave of herself, often in quiet, meaningful ways that reflected her compassion and generosity. Chris made this observation:

This was a hard-fought case from start to finish. Our role is to stand beside families during the most difficult times and make sure their voices are heard. We approach these cases with the responsibility they deserve, and we never lose sight of who and what they’re about.

While no outcome can undo the loss, the settlement represents a measure of accountability and closure for the family following a tragedy that forever changed their lives.

The Beasley Allen trial team was composed of Chris Glover, Stephen Mulherin, and Melody Demasi, all from our Atlanta office.

$25 Million Trucking Settlement

Greg Allen, LaBarron Boone, and Stephanie Monplaisir have reached a $25 million settlement in a trucking case. We can’t say more about the case due to confidentiality agreements that are in place.

Maximizing An “Off-Tracking” Trucking Settlement With The Discovery Of Falsified Logs

Every commercial truck driver knows the physics of a big rig, even if they don’t call it by its technical name: “off-tracking.” Off-tracking is the phenomenon that occurs when a tractor-trailer makes a turn and the trailer’s wheels follow a shorter, tighter path than the tractor’s wheels. Because the trailer “cuts the corner,” it can swing wide into an adjacent lane where other vehicles are occupied, run over a curb, and cause an impact with any object positioned inside of the turn. This well-known concept requires a driver to select the correct turn lane when multiple lanes are present, to ensure the execution of a safe turn.

Ben Keen, a Beasley Allen lawyer in our Atlanta office, recently settled a trucking case in which the defendant driver executed the left turn while straddling the far left and middle turn lane in a section of the roadway where three lanes were available to execute the subject turn. While negotiating the turn, the inner most lane was clear and our client properly navigated this turn. While completing the turn, the defendants’ trailer off tracked into her lane causing an impact and damages.

The evidence was clear that the safest lane for the driver to negotiate this turn was from the far right outermost left turn lane. It became clear that the defendant driver elected to perform this turn in an unsafe fashion because it was most convenient for his next maneuver. This is the heart of a driver placing his convenience over the safety of other roadway users.

The defense argued that the truck driver’s actions were merely negligent and that the driver was not fatigued. However, among closer examination of the driver logs, it became clear that the driver was in fact fatigued. On its face, the driver’s electronic logging device (ELD) records appeared to support hours of service compliance. However, a closer, line-by-line review of the logs told a different story.

The driver had repeatedly logged substantial stretches of drive time under the “personal conveyance” designation, a category intended for limited, non-work travel, such as driving a truck to a nearby restaurant during an off-duty period, rather than logging that time honestly as “driving” or “on-duty driving.”

By reclassifying actual drive time as personal conveyance, the driver was able to make his official record show that he had more available hours remaining before hitting his HOS limit than he actually did. This distinction matters enormously.

HOS rules exist because fatigue is one of the leading contributing factors in truck crashes. A driver who has secretly exceeded his legal driving limits is a fatigued driver, and fatigue directly affects reaction time, judgment, and the kind of careful, deliberate lane positioning that off-tracking maneuvers demand.

The falsification of federally required logs is not a minor paperwork issue. It is evidence that can speak directly to a driver’s and a carrier’s credibility, and it often opens the door to claims for punitive damages and closer scrutiny of the carrier’s broader compliance culture. In this case, uncovering the falsified logs was the turning point that allowed us to maximize the recovery for a deserving client.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Ben Keen. He will be glad to work with you.

Tesla Driver Overrode Full Self-Driving Before Fatal Texas Crash

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has found that the driver of a Tesla Model 3 involved in a fatal Texas crash manually overrode the vehicle’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system moments before the collision.

According to the NTSB’s preliminary report, the driver pressed the accelerator pedal to 100%, overriding FSD, before leaving the roadway, entering a residential driveway, and crashing into a home at more than 70 mph. The June 19 crash killed 76-year-old Martha Avila.

Investigators confirmed that FSD was engaged at the time of the crash, but vehicle data showed the driver had manually accelerated immediately before the crash. The NTSB said its investigation remains ongoing and may result in safety recommendations aimed at preventing similar incidents. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has also opened a separate crash investigation.

The family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla, alleging the company knowingly sold defective self-driving technology and failed to adequately address known safety risks. The lawsuit cites numerous crashes involving Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD systems and contends that Tesla’s public statements led some drivers to place excessive trust in the technology.

The case remains pending as federal investigators continue examining the circumstances surrounding the crash and the role of Tesla’s driver-assistance technology. We will continue to monitor this matter and will report on developments in a future Report.

Source: Law360

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS

July 2026 Motor Vehicle Recalls

Motor vehicle recalls remained a significant consumer safety issue in July 2026, with federal regulators identifying defects affecting hundreds of thousands of vehicles across multiple manufacturers. The recalls involved a variety of safety concerns, including fire hazards, steering failures, brake defects, drive-train problems, and other issues that could increase the risk of crashes or injuries. Several recalls also included warnings for owners to park vehicles outside due to potential fire risks.

As always, recall repairs are performed free of charge, making it important for drivers to respond promptly when notified of a safety defect.

Major Recalls Issued in July

Below is a breakdown of some of the most notable vehicle recalls announced in July 2026:

• BMW Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles (2016–2020)
  • Engine starter may corrode and overheat
  • Risk: Vehicle fire
  • Owners advised to park outside and away from structures until repairs are completed
• Toyota Grand Highlander & Lexus TX Models (2026)
  • Rear axle carrier may break
  • Risk: Loss of vehicle control while driving
• Volvo Trucks (2026)
  • Loose steering arm fasteners identified
  • Risk: Loss of steering control
• KTM, Husqvarna & GASGAS Motorcycles (Various Model Years)
  • Rear brake caliper may crack or break
  • Risk: Reduced braking ability and increased crash risk
• Ford Explorer (2016–2019)
  • Roof rail covers may detach while driving
  • Risk: Road hazard for surrounding motorists
• Tesla Model 3 & Model Y
  • Vehicles may not comply with certain federal occupant protection standards
  • Risk: Reduced safety compliance in the event of a crash
• BMW, Hyundai & Other Vehicles with Fire-Related Defects
  • Various electrical and battery-related issues identified
  • Risk: Fire while parked or in operation
  • Some owners advised to park outside until repairs are completed

Common Defects Identified

Several trends emerged from July’s recall activity. Fire-related defects involving electrical systems, batteries, and overheating components remained a major concern, with some manufacturers advising owners to park vehicles outside due to the risk of fires. Recalls involving steering, braking, and drivetrain components also raised concerns about potential loss of vehicle control and increased crash risks.

Additionally, several vehicles were recalled for compliance and equipment-related issues, including incorrect safety labels and defects that prevented them from meeting federal safety standards. While these issues may not always involve immediate mechanical failures, they can still affect vehicle safety and regulatory compliance.

What Drivers Should Do

If your vehicle is subject to a recall, taking prompt action can help reduce the risk of serious safety problems. Drivers should regularly check for recalls using their VIN and schedule repairs as soon as parts become available. Recall repairs are provided at no cost to vehicle owners.

If a recall notice advises owners to park outside, avoid charging the vehicle, or stop driving it altogether, those instructions should be followed immediately until the defect has been corrected. Staying informed about recalls and responding quickly can help prevent crashes, injuries, and potentially life-threatening situations on the road.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Recall Database

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Mobile Office Is Handling Crashworthiness Case Involving Seat Back Collapse

An active investigation into a rear-end collision is drawing renewed attention to the dangers of seatback collapse. Lawyers in our Mobile, AL office are examining whether an auto manufacturer’s front-seat design was strong enough to protect an occupant when the vehicle was struck from behind, potentially turning an otherwise survivable crash into a catastrophic injury event.

In the accident in question, our client was stopped on I-65 due to traffic ahead when she was hit from behind by another motorist in a smaller vehicle. But for the seatback collapse, she would have suffered minimal injuries. However, she was killed as a result of the seat back collapse.

In seatback-failure investigations, safety experts often evaluate whether weak or inadequately tested seat structures can bend, break, or collapse rearward during impact. When that happens, the seatbelt and head restraint may no longer hold the occupant in the intended position, increasing the risk of spinal injury, traumatic brain injury, ejection, or impact with rear-seat passengers.

The investigation centers on crashworthiness: whether the vehicle’s safety systems reasonably protected occupants after the collision occurred. Investigators may consider whether stronger seat designs, alternative materials, or more rigorous rear-impact testing could have reduced the risk of enhanced injury.

The matter underscores a broader safety issue that has been debated for decades: front seats are not merely comfort components, but part of the vehicle’s occupant-restraint system. Previous litigation has revealed that manufacturers often rely on outdated federal safety standards from 1967, which fail to protect occupants from modern crash forces. As rear-end collisions remain common on American roads, investigations involving alleged seatback failure continue to raise questions about design choices, regulatory standards, and the responsibility of automakers to prevent enhanced injuries.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Evan Allen.

Counterfeit Airbag Inflators

A dangerous class of counterfeit airbag inflators, manufactured by Jilin Province Detiannuo Safety Technology Co. (DTN) of China, has been linked to at least 10 deaths and two severe injuries across 12 documented crashes in the United States. Rather than deploying properly, these substandard inflators rupture on impact, ejecting metal shrapnel into drivers’ chests, necks, eyes, and faces — converting otherwise survivable collisions into fatal ones.

All 12 known incidents involved Chevrolet Malibu (2018–2022) and Hyundai Sonata (2017–2019) sedans, most carrying salvage or rebuilt titles, though federal regulators have not ruled out risk to other makes and models. The parts typically enter vehicles through independent body shops and online marketplaces after a prior crash triggers an airbag replacement, exploiting the price gap between genuine OEM components and cheaper counterfeit alternatives.

On April 29, 2026, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced a ban on these inflators — the agency’s first vehicle equipment ban in over two decades. DTN has disputed the findings, suggesting the devices in question may themselves be counterfeit copies rather than its authentic product. Complicating enforcement further, standard VIN-based recall searches cannot detect these parts since they are installed after a vehicle leaves the factory.

Litigation is already underway, including wrongful death suits alleging counterfeit DTN inflators caused fatal ruptures in previously repaired vehicles. Consumers with vehicles that have prior crash history are urged to have airbags inspected by a certified mechanic rather than relying on recall databases alone.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Stephen Mulherin. He will be glad to work with you.

PREMISES LIABILITY

The Guard Who Was Not Watching: Holding Security Companies Accountable When Hired Protection Becomes A False Promise

The lobby camera shows him clearly. He is slouched in the chair in the front lobby, head down, phone in hand, scrolling. It is 11:47 p.m. In plain view, a man with a very suspicious gate staggers past him, clearly concealing something. He does so numerous times, right in plain view in front of the security guard. What happens next is documented in a police report, a hospital record, an autopsy report, and eventually, a civil lawsuit. The security guard — the one person whose entire job was to prevent exactly this — never looked up, never kept a lookout, and didn’t follow his established policies.

This is not a hypothetical. Variations of this scenario play out across the country every week. At apartment complexes, hospitals, behavioral health facilities, schools, hotels, parking garages, and entertainment venues, property owners and facility managers hire security companies and post uniformed guards — and then assume the problem of crime is solved. But a badge and a uniform are not security. A guard who is asleep, distracted, untrained, unsupervised, or simply indifferent is not protection. In many cases, the presence of this type of security guard is actually worse than no guard at all, because it creates the appearance of safety while the door remains wide open for violence.

At Beasley Allen, we are actively investigating cases against security companies across the country where this exact failure — a guard who was not watching, a company that did not care whether its guards were watching — led to catastrophic and entirely preventable criminal violence against real people. These cases are winnable. And the security industry’s own data makes it clear why that is true. This is a basic premise:

A guard who is asleep, distracted, or untrained is not protection — it is a false promise that leaves victims with no warning and no defense.

An Industry Built on a Crumbling Foundation

The private security industry in the United States is enormous. The global manned guarding market is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and demand for security personnel continues to grow. But the industry that provides that security is struggling to retain its security guards.

According to ASIS International publications, the security guard industry continues to suffer through turnover, oftentimes due to poor pay. The median annual wage for a security guard in the United States is $38,370 — roughly eighteen dollars and forty-six cents per hour. Although the security industry can be highly profitable, many security companies pay their guards a minimal rate, especially considering these guards work overnight shifts, weekends, and holidays.

The guards are often assigned to facilities or areas they know nothing about, are given minimal orientation, receive no security vulnerability assessment or training on the area, are handed a radio and a logbook, and are told to watch the door. When something goes wrong — as it inevitably does — the security company’s excuses are almost always the same: the incident was unforeseeable, the criminal actor could not be deterred by the guard, the actor was not suspicious, there was nothing the guard could have done or seen even had they been paying attention, and the company shouldn’t be held responsible. All too often, we find those excuses to be baseless, and juries across the country understand this as well.

What Security Company Negligence Actually Looks Like

When a security guard fails to do their job, the guard is rarely the only one responsible. The security company that recruited, screened, trained, deployed, and supervised that guard carries its own responsibility. Lawyers who handle these cases properly pursue both threads simultaneously, and they look for the following categories of corporate failure:

• Negligent Hiring. A security company has a duty to screen applicants before placing them in positions of trust. This means meaningful background checks, verification of any required licenses or certifications, and review of prior employment history. A guard with a prior conviction for violence, a history of being terminated for abandoning a post, or no verifiable qualifications has no business being given a uniform and sent to protect other people. When companies skip this work — because they are understaffed, because turnover is too high, because they are cutting corners on overhead — and harm results, the negligent hiring claim follows directly.

• Negligent Training. Handing a new hire a badge and a logbook is not training. Security personnel must be taught policies and procedures, what they are looking for, how to recognize an escalating threat, what to do when they encounter one, how to communicate with law enforcement, and how to document incidents. At specialized facilities — healthcare settings, behavioral health programs, schools, facilities housing vulnerable populations — the training demands are even greater. A common issue is training the guard only once. In this field, guards must be re-trained periodically. Companies that rely on one-time training years ago, or who deploy guards to these environments with nothing more than a few hours of generic orientation, have not discharged their duty and are asking for problems.

• Negligent Supervision. A security company’s responsibility does not end when the guard walks through the door for the first shift. Supervisors must verify that guards are actually present and diligent at their assigned posts, following their policies and procedures, making required rounds, completing logs, documenting incidents, and escalating concerns appropriately. When the company has no system for verifying any of this — when a guard can spend an entire overnight shift on a cell phone or asleep in a chair with no one ever checking — it’s a recipe for disaster.

• Negligent Retention. Security companies sometimes know that a particular guard is a problem. There are complaints in the file. Incident reports. Prior documented failures to respond. Prior instances of abandoning a post, or inattentive behavior. If a company keeps that guard in service despite clear warning signs, and that guard’s continued failure causes harm to someone, the retention decision is itself a form of corporate negligence.

• Abandoning a Post. One of the most straightforward failures in this category is also one of the most common: the guard is simply not present. Whether it is a long break that turned into an extended period away, a habit of leaving to run personal errands, or a guard who physically walked off the job, the absence of a posted security presence at a location that requires one is a clear breach. When that absence is discovered by a predator — as it often is — the consequences can be devastating.

• Poor or Non-existent, Diligence. Perhaps the single most common failure is the lack of diligence on the part of the guard and his or her security company. A guard can be well-credentialed and properly trained, but if they are not diligent in their job, then those credentials and training are irrelevant. We see a lack of diligence in so many ways, and they all can create catastrophic results: cellphone use, zoning out, improper conversation, ignorance to the environment and facility’s prior history, or poor record keeping (to just name a few).

• Unprofessional Security Company Behavior. One of the more distressing situations we see is what can only be described as unprofessional security behavior. A security company should foster a highly diligent and alert culture. One would expect them to have a pristine document management system; to conduct a security vulnerability assessment of each client to be aware of security vulnerabilities; a system to supervise; written post orders for their security guards (which are the written orders the guard must follow); and clear enforcement of policies, procedures and those post orders. Too often, we see security companies shirking their responsibility to do these very basic actions – many times all of these. A security company should never create vulnerabilities – their very existence is predicated on their ability to identify vulnerabilities, to identify means to close those vulnerabilities, and then to come up with a system to ensure constant diligence in closing those vulnerabilities.

In each one of the above scenarios, we have seen where security companies have not only failed to identify and close security vulnerabilities, but through their actions, they have actually created them. These cases are often bitterly contested, and rarely do they ever resolve until late in the case or through trial. Security companies have developed a predictable playbook when these cases arise. They argue:

that the guard was an independent contractor, not an employee.

that the specific violent act was not foreseeable, deterrable, or that there was nothing a diligent security could have done to prevent an incident.

that the property owner, not the security company, bears primary responsibility.

We have found that hiring numerous experts from a variety of fields is essential to success in these cases. That’s because there is no end to the variety of excuses certain security companies will make for failing to meet their promises.

If you have a client who was harmed at a facility that had contracted security in place – or should have had security in place – we want to talk to you about investigating these cases. Our lawyers are currently investigating these and other catastrophic premises cases (whether through criminal violence, sexual violence, fires, explosions, horrific falls, infrastructure collapse, drownings, electrocutions, poisonings, or other horrific events) across the nation.

Our lead premises lawyer Parker Miller has had over $340 million in verdicts and settlements in catastrophic premises cases. He works closely with other highly skilled premises lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. If you would like to speak with us about a potential catastrophic premises case, contact Sloan Downes, Director of the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. She will have one of the lawyers respond to you.

FCA AND WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION

DOJ Announces Record $6.5 Billion Health Care Fraud Takedown, Charges 455 Defendants Nationwide

On June 23, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the results of its 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, unveiling criminal charges against 455 defendants, including 90 doctors and other licensed medical professionals, in connection with more than $6.5 billion in allegedly false claims submitted to federal and state health care programs. The Department described the coordinated action, which spanned 56 federal districts and 45 states and territories, as the largest whole-of-government health care fraud enforcement effort in the nation’s history, with 50 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units participating — the most in Department history.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the operation as part of a broader administration priority. “This year’s National Health Care Fraud Takedown represents the greatest whole-of-government effort to combat health care fraud in our Nation’s history,” Blanche said, crediting the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud and federal law enforcement partners for what he called “a new era of enforcement.” Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald, who leads the Department’s National Fraud Enforcement Division, added a blunter warning to providers: “if you put profit over patients, you should expect to be put in prison.”

International Reach and Fugitive Apprehensions

A notable feature of this year’s takedown was its international dimension. Over the two-week enforcement period, U.S. authorities secured the return of several fugitives, including a defendant apprehended in Kyrenia in connection with a $3.7 billion scheme, two defendants extradited from Estonia tied to a previously charged $10.6 billion scheme, and Herb Kimble, one of the FBI’s Most Wanted Fraudsters, who was apprehended in the Philippines in connection with a previously charged $1.2 billion telemedicine scheme.

Wound Care and Amniotic Allograft Schemes

Eleven defendants across six federal districts were charged in connection with billions of dollars in claims for amniotic wound allografts. In the District of Arizona, a company sales executive was charged in an alleged nationwide kickback scheme in which a company that did not manufacture allografts allegedly relabeled and marked up product by roughly 2,000%, charging up to $1,450 per square centimeter, while paying illegal kickbacks equal to roughly 40% of that amount to marketers and providers. Prosecutors allege this scheme, which drove more than $4 billion in Medicare billings and over $2 billion in payments between December 2021 and June 2024, led providers to apply allografts to hospice patients without physician coordination or regard to medical necessity.

In the Southern District of Texas, a nurse practitioner was charged in connection with a $906 million scheme in which she allegedly billed Medicare more than $1 million per patient on average for medically unnecessary allografts, using proceeds to fund luxury vehicles, real estate, jewelry, and a $4.6 million beach resort under construction in the Philippines. The government seized more than $30 million in bank accounts along with high-end vehicles and jewelry connected to the alleged scheme. A related $118 million scheme charged in the Middle District of Florida involved a nurse practitioner accused of using proceeds for, among other things, an NFL stadium luxury box and fine art purchases.

Record Medicaid Enforcement

This year’s takedown produced the largest number of Medicaid fraud defendants and the largest Medicaid loss amount charged in Department history: 295 defendants and more than $518 million in false claims. Notable cases included a $38 million New York Medicaid scheme involving social adult day care centers licensed for 30 occupants that allegedly billed for hundreds of beneficiaries daily; a $49 million Virginia Medicaid scheme in which a mental health company co-owner allegedly offered homeless individuals hotel stays in exchange for using their Medicaid numbers; and a $44 million Arizona scheme allegedly targeting Native American patients struggling with substance abuse through falsified therapy documentation.

Context and Institutional Framework

The takedown was coordinated by the Department’s Health Care Fraud Unit together with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, HHS-OIG, the FBI, the DEA, and state Medicaid Fraud Control Units, with participation from CMS, Homeland Security Investigations, the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, IRS Criminal Investigation, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Department of Labor, and other agencies.

Beasley Allen lawyers have been successful in a large number of False Claims Act cases including the obtaining of favorable verdicts. If you are aware of fraud, abuse or waste being committed against the federal government or a state government and are interested in pursuing a whistleblower lawsuit, contact a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Visit our website at www.beasleyallen.com to read more about the successful results our lawyers have achieved on behalf of whistleblowers as well as federal and state governments.

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation around the country. Claims are being made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. 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 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: Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes, and Tyner Helms. You can also contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and she will have a lawyer on the team respond to you.

SECURITIES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION

SEC Says Sales Agents Aided Florida $56 Million Real Estate Fraud

In late June, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled actions against two sales agents connected to a real estate fraud scheme in Florida. In the complaints, the SEC alleged that the defendants worked as unregistered dealer-brokers to raise $56 million from investors through the sales of promissory notes.

The SEC filed two civil actions in Florida and Texas federal courts, alleging that Sanders Family Office LLC (SFO) and its principal Margaret Sanders, and Francisco J. Herrera raised millions of dollars for Wells Real Estate Investments LLC, a fraudulent scheme operated by husband-and-wife team Janalie C. Bingham and Jean Joseph.

SFO, Sanders and Herrera consented to entries of final judgment without admitting wrongdoing, although courts would still need to approve orders directing them not to violate provisions of the Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act, according to an announcement by the SEC.

In August 2024, the SEC filed a civil action in Florida federal court against Wells, Bingham and Joseph, claiming they operated an unregistered fraudulent securities offering and Ponzi scheme. Wells raised about $56 million from more than 600 investors between January 2020 and April 2024, according to the commission.

According to the SEC, Bingham and Joseph misrepresented to investors that Wells had a $450 million real estate portfolio and used funds only to buy and improve real estate. The promissory notes issued by Wells, promised to generate interest ranging from 12% to 33% per year. Instead, Bingham and Joseph used only $11 million to invest in real estate, with the remainder of which was misused and misappropriated, according to the SEC.

About $28 million in investor funds was used to make speculative futures and options trades, losing nearly $12 million. Wells also operated as a Ponzi scheme, using new investors’ funds to pay interest and principal payments to other investors. Wells also paid nearly $7 million in commissions to sales agents, the SEC said. Bingham and Joseph also spent $1.8 million on personal expenses and transferred a $1.9 million home purchased with investor funds to Bingham.

Both Joseph and Bingham were criminally charged in Florida federal court in connection with the Wells scheme. Joseph, who previously pleaded guilty to wire fraud in 2019, was sentenced to 20 years in prison on June 11 after pleading guilty in March to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. On the same date the civil complaints were filed against SFO, Sanders, and Herrara, Bingham was sentenced to four years in prison, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

In the Texas civil action, the SEC said Sanders and SFO “recruited, trained, and supervised a network of sales agents” to solicit and raise about $40 million from about 600 investors between August 2020 to March 2023, in several states. The complaint alleged Sanders and SFO earned $2.97 million in transaction-based commissions selling the Wells notes. Neither SFO, Sanders, nor the Wells offerings were registered with the SEC.

Herrera, who owned Illinois-based Confia Financial, managed a team of sales agents in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico that sold approximately $10 million in promissory notes to 190 investors, according to the SEC. Herrara promoted the notes on the internet and on his radio program. The complaint further alleged that Herrera was paid more than $488,200 in commissions related to the sale of the Wells notes. Like Sanders, Herrera was not registered with the SEC to sell securities. The SEC said in both civil actions:

The notes constitute investment contracts and are, therefore, securities because investors contributed money into a common enterprise in which their fortunes were inextricably tied to [Wells’] success. Many of the investors who purchased the notes incurred catastrophic losses, including losing retirement funds.

In a press release, the SEC said the Sanders and SFO agreed to the disgorgement of $3.4 million, including the $2.97 million in “ill-gotten” commissions and $506,000 in interest. Additionally, the SEC is seeking a court order for Sanders herself to pay a civil penalty of $100,000.

Herrera consented to the entry of a bifurcated judgment that bars him from further violating the Securities Acts but leaves the issue of disgorgement of his $488,224 in commissions, interest, and a civil penalty to be determined by the court.

Every year, there are thousands of private investment offerings in the U.S. According to SEC data, issuers filed nearly 35,000 offerings under the SEC’s Regulation D, which provides a registration exemption for private offerings. Beyond filing with the SEC, state Blue Sky Laws also require registration with the state where the security will be sold, and require notice filing if an exemption is claimed under Reg D.

While private investments can be profitable, if an investment is not registered with the SEC or the state, it should be a red flag to investigate further before investing. Beyond the investment itself, those who sell the product must also be registered. In situations like the Wells scheme, these unregistered salespersons could be the only source for recovery when the scheme itself has wasted investor funds.

Our Consumer Fraud and Commercial Litigation Section has attorneys experienced with securities regulation and litigation who are available to help. If you need more information, contact attorney James Eubank. James, who worked for years as a securities regulator with the Alabama Securities Commission, is leading the team on securities fraud investigations.

Live Nation Verdict: Takeaways For Future Antitrust Claims Against Other Defendants

Despite a settlement with the DOJ announced on March 5, 2026, the Attorneys General from 36 states and D.C. pushed forward in the antitrust case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, and were rewarded with a jury verdict in their favor. That jury verdict offers doctrinal signals that plaintiffs’ counsel can look to when structuring antitrust claims in vertically integrated or platform-style markets.

First, the jury found that Live Nation’s practice of tying amphitheater access to the use of its promotion services violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Tying allegations depend on establishing sufficient market power in the tying product (amphitheater access) to force acceptance of the tied product (promotion services). That a jury found liability in a case involving contractual rather than purely technical bundling, can be instructive for claims involving similar conditioning arrangements in other vertically integrated industries, including sports, media distribution, and healthcare networks.

Another key takeaway involves market definition. The jury accepted narrow, conduct-specific market definitions (primary ticketing at major concert venues, large amphitheaters) rather than broader market characterizations urged by the defense. This supports continued use of narrowly drawn market definitions tied to specific conduct and specific classes of customers or venues, an approach that has faced skepticism in some prior monopolization cases. After all, if you can define a market too narrowly, everything is a monopoly.

A third takeaway for plaintiffs is the damages methodology. The jury’s per-unit overcharge finding of $1.72 per ticket reflects an economic model tying alleged supracompetitive pricing to a discrete, quantifiable unit of transaction. This methodology, translating monopoly conduct into a per-transaction figure, may be a useful reference point for plaintiffs’ experts modeling damages in other consumer-facing platform or ticketing markets. This damages model lends itself to consumer-charge-driven damages in a monopolization case.

Other models applicable to antitrust cases, such as yardstick comparisons or regression-based analyses, are also quantifiable, but require more foundational proof (a comparable market, or statistical controls for confounding variables) and can be more difficult for a jury to evaluate than a straightforward per-unit charge that applies uniformly to everyone affected by the alleged misconduct.

If you have questions or need help with a case involving anticompetitive behavior, contact Beasley Allen attorneys Dee Miles, Rebecca Gilliland, or Lauren Miles. They will be glad to work with you.

Sources: Crowell, Department of Justice, NBC News, CNN

WORKPLACE LITIGATION

The Borrowed Servant Doctrine In Georgia: How It Works And How To Overcome It In On-the-Job Injury Cases

When a potential client is hurt on a construction site, in a warehouse, or on any job site where multiple companies and staffing agencies are involved, the issues often get complicated very fast. One of the most common defenses raised in these situations is the “borrowed servant” doctrine. If it applies, it can wipe out an injured worker’s ability to sue the party whose negligence actually caused the harm. Understanding how the doctrine works — and where it breaks down — is critical to building a viable injury claim.

What Is the Borrowed Servant Doctrine?

Georgia’s workers’ compensation system is built around a trade-off: employees give up the right to sue their employer in tort, and in exchange they receive no-fault benefits (medical care and wage replacement) regardless of who was at fault. This is Georgia’s “exclusive remedy” rule, codified at O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. It bars an injured employee from suing their employer — or a co-employee of that same employer — in a personal injury lawsuit, limiting them to workers’ compensation benefits instead.

The borrowed servant doctrine extends that same protection to situations where a worker is technically employed by one company (the “general employer” or “lending employer”) but is loaned out to work under the direction of a different company (the “special employer” or “borrowing employer”). This comes up constantly with:

• Staffing and temp agencies (Labor Ready–type arrangements)
• Crane and heavy equipment operators leased along with their machinery
• Subcontracted labor on construction sites
• Multi-jurisdictional task forces and interagency personnel loans
• Outside staffing companies placing workers at hospitals, facilities, or plants

If a court finds that an injured worker was a “borrowed servant” of the company where the injury occurred, that company (and its regular employees) is generally treated as if it were the worker’s own employer — meaning the worker’s only remedy is workers’ compensation, not a tort lawsuit. Courts have described this as a natural application of respondeat superior: liability for a servant’s negligence follows whoever actually controlled the servant at the time, and both employers cannot simultaneously control the same worker.

The Three-Prong Test

Georgia courts apply a well-established three-part test to determine borrowed servant status. Originally articulated by the Georgia Supreme Court and repeatedly applied since, the test asks whether:

• The special (borrowing) employer had complete control and direction of the worker for the occasion;
• The general (lending) employer had no such control; and
• The special (borrowing) employer had the exclusive right to discharge the worker.

All three elements must be met for the doctrine to apply. If a defendant fails to establish even one prong, the borrowed servant defense fails, and the case can proceed as an ordinary negligence claim. This is where most of the real litigation battles happen, because each prong has been shaped and narrowed by decades of Georgia appellate decisions.

Strategies to Overcome the Borrowed Servant Defense

Because all three prongs must be satisfied, an injury claim can often survive — or even defeat summary judgment — by attacking any single element. Below are the main approaches used to overcome the defense.

1. Show the Borrowing Employer Did Not Have “Complete” Control

The first prong requires complete control over the worker’s actions at the time of the injury — not just general supervision or workplace oversight. Georgia courts have refused to find borrowed servant status as a matter of law where the worker retained independent judgment or specialized expertise that the borrowing company could not or did not actually direct.

2. Show the General (Lending) Employer Retained Some Control

The second prong fails if the lending employer kept any meaningful degree of control over the worker. Courts have found this element unmet where the lending company continued to supervise the worker, set schedules, handled more than payroll administration, or had ongoing contact with the worker’s daily assignments — as opposed to a truly “hands-off” arrangement where the lending company’s role was limited to payroll and paperwork.

3. Attack the “Exclusive Right to Discharge” Prong

This is often the most fruitful avenue. Georgia courts have consistently held that the right to discharge relevant to this test is narrow: it means the right to remove the worker from the specific task or assignment at issue — not the general power to end the overall staffing relationship or employment contract altogether.

4. Challenge the Governing Contract or Show It Doesn’t Reflect Reality

Where a lending/borrowing contract purports to establish a borrowed servant relationship, remember that the existence of such a contract is influential but not always automatically dispositive.

Ken Wilson, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, contributed to this part of the Report. He is one of the product liability lawyers at Beasley Allen. These lawyers have extensive experience handling complex on-the-job injury cases. If you have a matter that may involve an on-the-job injury, our lawyers are available to review the case and help determine the best course of action. Contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. She will have one of the product liability lawyers in the Section respond to you.

Class Action Litigation

Court Grants Final Approval To Honda Idle Stop Class Action Settlement

On May 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval to a nationwide class action settlement covering 2015-2021 Pilot, Ridgeline, and Passport vehicles, and Acura TLX and MDX vehicles (Class Vehicles), equipped with defective Auto Idle Stop systems. The settlement, which provides an extended warranty and related relief to the current and former owners and lessees of over 680,000 Honda and Acura Vehicles, has an estimated valued of over $261 million.

To save fuel—Honda’s Auto Idle Stop feature is designed to automatically shut off a Class Vehicle’s engine when the brake pedal is fully applied at a stop and automatically restart the engine when the driver releases the brake to continue driving. The Class Vehicles, however, contained the defective A52 starter motor assembly – an essential part in starting a vehicle’s engine – which was made from materials that could not withstand the heat of its environment or its increased use from the Auto Idle Stop system. As a result, the starter motor can degrade over time and fail to supply sufficient torque to the engine. In turn, that can result in difficulty starting the vehicle, and failing to restart as intended—a problem Honda internally labeled as “no-restart.” (Idle Stop Defect). There are many reports by drivers of near misses and other dangerous conditions caused by the Idle Stop Defect.

The class action against Honda was filed in the Central District of California on June 21, 2022. Plaintiffs alleged that Honda began receiving owner complaints of the Idle Stop Defect as early as 2015 but continued to manufacture and sell the Class Vehicles without disclosing or repairing the defect. Plaintiffs also alleged Honda’s technical service bulletins, issued between March 2022 and January 2023, were inadequate because they required Honda’s technicians to “verify”, in real time, the No-Restart condition prior to providing customers a replacement starter motor assembly free of charge.

The settlement provides the very relief plaintiffs have been seeking since June 2022. Under the settlement, Honda and Acura dealerships can no longer require live proof of the No-Restart behavior prior to performing the engineered fix – valve adjustments and a new starter motor. The settlement also provides a 10-year warranty extension from the original lease or purchase date, and Honda will extend the claim period for 24 months for 2015 models and 18 months for 2016 models, starting from the date of preliminary approval. Customers who previously paid out-of-pocket for starter, starter relay, or valve adjustment repairs may be eligible for reimbursement by submitting timely claim forms and documentation.

Plaintiffs and Class Members are represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann, along with Andrew T. Trailor, P.A. and lawyers with DiCello Levitt, LLP.

The case is In re Honda Idle Stop Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-04252-MCS-SK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Federal Judge Sets Ground Rules For Consolidated Dupixent Litigation

A New Jersey federal judge has issued the foundational order governing dozens of lawsuits alleging injuries from Dupixent (dupilumab), the blockbuster eczema and asthma drug made by Regeneron and Sanofi.

U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi’s Initial Procedure Order No. 1, entered June 11, 2026, consolidates 17 pending cases—and any future related filings—into multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 26-md-3180) for pretrial purposes. The order does not merge the cases for trial, and it does not make any company a defendant in a suit where it hasn’t been named.

The order sets a roadmap toward an October 1, 2026, Initial Management Conference in Trenton, where Judge Quraishi and Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day will address case organization. Attorneys are required to confer by July 24 and submit a joint status report by September 10 covering leadership structure, discovery scope, class certification, and other key issues. A proposed management order is due by November 1.

In the meantime, the order pauses the clock: defendants don’t have to respond to complaints, and discovery is stayed, until the court sets a schedule. It also requires all parties to preserve relevant documents and data, sets filing and docketing procedures for the newly created Master Docket, and waives local-counsel requirements for out-of-district attorneys.

The order signals the litigation is still in its early organizational phase, with substantive proceedings not expected to begin in earnest until later this year.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact cade Crow, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section. He will be glad to work with you.

Hair Relaxers Update

Hair relaxer litigation continues to progress in both federal and state courts, with several notable developments over the past month. In Cook County, Illinois, the July status conference addressed key deposition and discovery issues related to Defendant AFAM. The hearing resulted in an order requiring AFAM to produce corporate representatives for deposition on a rolling deadline through the end of July. The court also denied AFAM’s motion to reconsider a prior order requiring the production of key documents from the 2022 – 2026. This important ruling opens additional discovery opportunities for the plaintiffs. AFAM is required to produce responsive documents by late July. The court also addressed many objections in case-specific discovery in the trial set cases. The court is still pushing for a multi-plaintiff trial by the end of this year with additional multi-plaintiff trials in the first half of 2027.

In the federal MDL pending in the Northern District of Illinois, the court addressed several discovery issues regarding RNA, who is alleged to have served as a contract manufacturer of hair relaxer products for various MDL defendants. The court ordered RNA to produce certain manufacturing contracts and related correspondence with MDL defendants.

Taken together, these developments underscore that the hair relaxer litigation is moving steadily toward merits and bellwether phases across multiple jurisdictions, with key expert and class certification rulings on the near horizon.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Matt Teague, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section. He will be glad to work with you.

Ozempic Litigation Update

The GLP-1 MDL (MDL 3094) continues to grow, with 3,848 cases pending as of July 1, 2026 – an increase of 85 cases since June. The litigation involves claims against Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly arising from alleged injuries associated with GLP-1 receptor agonist medications. Plaintiffs allege they were not adequately warned about serious side effects associated with Ozempic and other GLP-1 medications.

The litigation remains focused on defendants’ pending Daubert motions seeking to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation experts, as well as related motions for summary

judgment. Plaintiffs filed their response briefs to those motions in early July, opposing defendants’ requests to exclude expert testimony and dismiss the litigation. The challenged expert testimony addresses general causation for alleged injuries, including gastroparesis ileus, and gallbladder injuries.

We will continue to monitor the litigation and provide updates as the court rules on the pending motions. Beasley Allen lawyers Ryan Duplechin, Chad Cook, and Cade Crow continue to advocate on behalf of individuals pursuing claims related to these

medications.

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

Colorado Judge Awards Damages In Kratom Lawsuit

A Colorado state judge awarded $2.75 million in damages to the parents of a Colorado man who died from using kratom products, finding that the kratom companies engaged in willful and wanton conduct. The judgment award stems from a default judgment where certain defendants in the case failed to appear for damages hearing and failed to respond to the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that the decedent was healthy until his untimely death from kratom and its improper labeling.

Kratom is a botanical extract that is touted as a safe alternative to drugs and alcohol. In states where legal, kratom is easily accessible in gas stations and smoke shops. Kratom acts on the opioid receptors of the brain and is linked to numerous adverse events, including respiratory failure, seizures, and deaths. An uptick in reported deaths has led many states recently banning kratom and/or it’s more potent counterpart, 7-OH.

Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith, Ryan Duplechin, David Byrne, Mary Cam Raybon, Leighton Johnson, and Cade Crow are at the forefront of the litigation, representing individuals severely injured by kratom. They have filed several cases with more under investigation.

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

TOXIC TORTS LITIGATION

SCOTUS Ruling Reshapes Roundup Litigation

Last month, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion which impacts the landscape of Roundup personal injury lawsuits filed nationwide. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Supreme Court held, by a 7-2 vote, that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims seeking a cancer warning on Roundup labels when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not required such a warning. The decision overturned the $1.25 million jury verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff John Durnell.

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, reasoned that imposing liability for the absence of a cancer warning would effectively require Monsanto to alter its EPA-approved label, thereby creating a labeling requirement “in addition to or different from” federal law. Before a company can register an herbicide like Roundup, it must submit information related to the potential health risks to the EPA to consider in creating a label with adequate warnings.

The court deferred to the EPA’s finding that the key herbicide (glyphosate) is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and the agency’s conclusion that Monsanto’s proposed label without a cancer warning was sufficient. The majority of the court acknowledged that the EPA’s decision could change if new information comes to light which may eventually require a cancer warning.

This ruling will impact current and future roundup cases which rely heavily on the viability of state-law failure-to-warn claims. Currently, there are approximately 65,000 cases pending in various state courts across the country or in the federal MDL in California. Importantly, this ruling does not affect the other legal claims commonly asserted by plaintiffs including negligence, design defect, and other product liability claims which do not directly challenge the EPA-approved labeling. These remaining theories still offer plaintiffs avenues to pursue Monsanto in court.

The Durnell decision will also likely result in more pending and future claims being resolved through the proposed $7.25 billion global settlement filed in Missouri Circuit Court earlier this year. Monsanto’s parent company Bayer announced it will continue to pursue final approval of this settlement notwithstanding the decision in Durnell. The Missouri court preliminarily approved the settlement in February and required class members to opt out by June 4, 2026.

A group of settlement objectors unsuccessfully attempted to remove the settlement to federal court which delayed the original class settlement briefing schedule set by the Missouri court. Consequently, the Missouri court delayed the Final Approval Hearing from July 9, 2026, to August 19, 2026, to allow additional time for responses and objections to be submitted. This brief extension could be beneficial as it may permit those objecting to reconsider their position given the Durnell decision.

Moving forward, claims alleging that manufacturers should have included safety warnings not required by the EPA will face significant preemption hurdles. We expect Monsanto (and other defendants in other industries subject to federal regulation) to use Durnell to argue that federally approved warning labels cannot be second-guessed by state juries. This decision indicates the court will not look favorably on cases where a regulatory agency considered the potential health risks of a chemical and declined to issue a warning.

Our firm is continuing to monitor these developments. Attorneys Rhon Jones, Wesley Merillat, Elizabeth Walden, and Ryan Kral oversee the firm’s Roundup litigation. They will be glad to answer any questions about the litigation or class settlement. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section. She will have one of these lawyers respond to you.

Update On Supreme Court’s Decision In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell: What It Means For Paraquat Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is one of the most significant federal preemption rulings in recent product liability litigation. The court held that the plaintiff’s state-law failure-to-warn claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), concluding that states cannot impose labeling requirements that are “in addition to or different from” those required under federal law.

The court emphasized that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for evaluating a pesticide’s risks and approving its labeling, while manufacturers have an ongoing duty to provide the EPA with new safety information. Where the EPA has affirmatively considered a product’s risks and approved its warning label, state-law claims seeking additional warnings conflict with FIFRA’s regulatory framework.

The ruling was heavily influenced by the EPA’s longstanding position on Roundup. After repeated scientific review, the EPA concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and approved labeling without a cancer warning. Because the EPA had already considered and rejected the warning sought by the plaintiff, the court found the claims preempted.

The exact implications for Paraquat litigation remain uncertain. Unlike glyphosate, the EPA has never issued a final determination regarding whether paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease. Instead, the agency withdrew its prior interim decision and continues to reevaluate paraquat’s safety, leaving the regulatory landscape materially different from that in Durnell.

Despite understandable concern regarding its broader implications, the current consensus among many lawyers in the Paraquat litigation is that the ruling should not materially affect the ongoing settlement process or the claims of individuals who have already elected to participate in the settlement program. More significant questions are likely to arise in future litigation involving claimants who have not yet resolved their cases.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Khadiga Carr, a lawyer in our Toxic Torts Section. She will be glad to work with you.

CONSUMER CORNER

Old Trick, New App: The Sweepstakes Casino Loophole Is Closing

Indiana has now done what consumer advocates and gaming regulators have long urged: it has called an online sweepstakes casino exactly what it is, gambling. Governor Mike Braun signed House Bill 1052 into law on March 13, 2026, making Indiana the first state in 2026 to formally ban online sweepstakes casinos that operate through dual-currency systems.

The law which took effect on July 1, 2026, empowers the Indiana Gaming Commission to impose civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation against any operator who knowingly continues offering these games to Indiana residents.

Sweepstakes casinos avoid gambling laws by selling a virtual currency, typically called “Gold Coins,” that carry no cash value, while bundling a second redeemable currency with each purchase, often called “Sweeps Coins” or “Sweeps Cash.”

The operators of these online casinos have long argued that because the redeemable currency can technically be obtained for free through a mail-in request, no gambling transaction occurs. Indiana’s legislature rejected that argument. House Bill 1052 targets any online game that simulates casino, lottery, or sports wagering formats and uses a dual or multi-currency system allowing players to exchange currency for a chance to win cash or equivalent prizes.

This is not a new scheme; it is a familiar one with a new digital wrapper. States across the country, including Alabama, confronted the exact same business model decades ago in the form of the “internet sweepstakes café.” These storefront operations sold phone cards or internet time and bundled casino-style gaming credits with each purchase. The Alabama Supreme Court struck the scheme down in Barber v. Jefferson County Racing Association, holding that the element of consideration was present because customers were paying for the gambling opportunity, not the nominal product. Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Mississippi, and more than a dozen other states followed with their own bans on internet sweepstakes cafés.

Online sweepstakes casinos are the internet-era descendants of those same operations. The storefront has moved from a strip mall to a smartphone app, but the architecture of the scheme is identical. Indiana is not an isolated response. In 2025, five states, Montana, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and California, enacted explicit prohibitions on dual-currency sweepstakes platforms. Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Maine have since acted as well. More than a dozen states now ban or substantially restrict these operations, and the Indiana Gaming Commission chairman testified that nine additional states were considering legislation during the current legislative session.

Beasley Allen attorneys Dee Miles, Mitch Williams, and Trent Mann are currently representing plaintiffs and proposed class members in class action lawsuits against sweepstakes casino operators in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, Georgia, and Oregon. These lawsuits invoke each state’s gambling loss recovery statutes, which allow individuals who have lost money through unlawful gambling to bring civil claims to recover those losses.

The growing wave of state bans confirms what these lawsuits have argued from the outset: the dual-currency sweepstakes model is a legal pretext, not a legitimate distinction, and operators who built a business on that loophole are now watching it close, state by state, through legislation and litigation alike.

We will keep our readers informed on developments in this important litigation. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. She will have one of the lawyers respond to you.

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients

Beasley Allen is organized in a structure that benefits the clients we represent. The firm operates in five separate sections: four litigation sections and one administrative section. The separate litigation sections concept has worked extremely well for the firm. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients and has allowed our lawyers to bring about needed national changes in product and workplace safety.

Since our beginning over 45 years ago, 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 litigation 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. We believe our approach has allowed us to help more of those who need it most, year after year.

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, Premises Liability and Truck Accident cases. There are 27 lawyers in the Section.

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, Predatory Gaming, Video Game Addiction, Ultra-Processed Foods, Dupixent and Talcum Powder. There are 40 lawyers in the Section.

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. There are 19 lawyers in the Section.

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. There are 16 lawyers in the Section.

The Administrative Section

The Administrative Section consists of several departments: Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT), and Marketing. Jackie Killough 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, regulations 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/).

Practices

• Business Litigation
• Civil & Human Rights
• Class Actions
• Consumer Protection
• Employment Law
• Medical Devices
• Medication
• Personal Injury
• Product Liability
• Toxic Exposure
• Whistleblower Litigation

Cases

• Acetaminophen — Cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD.
• Auto Accidents — Life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence.
• Auto Defect Class Actions — Pursuing auto manufacturers and their suppliers for vehicle defects that create safety risks.
• Auto Products — Investigating auto accidents for defects or product liability issues.
• Aviation Accidents — Investigating aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error, and other causes.
• Camp Lejeune — Cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987.
• Defective Tires — Accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures.
• Depo-Provera — Individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral meningiomas.
• Dupixent — Investigating the link between Dupixent and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL).
• Hair Relaxers — Cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers who may develop uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer.
• Kratom — Cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula — Cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac.
• Negligent Security — Cases where property owners fail to provide adequate security, putting visitors at risk of violent crimes.
• On-the-Job-Injuries — Workers’ compensation cases, often finding defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths.
• Ozempic — Cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat — Cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease, banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries.
• Premises Liability — Cases where negligence from property owners or occupiers has created dangerous conditions resulting in serious injuries.
• Roblox — Investigating claims involving online and in-person harm for children who have encountered adult predators on Roblox and/or Discord.
• Social Media — Advocating for youth who have suffered harms from social media addiction including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide.
• Talcum Powder — Cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder.
• Truck Accidents — Accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks.
• Ultra-Processed Foods — Cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• Video Game Addiction — Cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors.

Resources to Help Your Practice

The leadership team at Beasley Allen understands the importance of sharing resources and collaborating with our fellow trial lawyers throughout the country. We are committed to investing in resources that can help our other 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

Mary Leah Miller, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, will provide some information this month that will be most helpful relating to an important aspect of trial work. Mary Leah has had extensive experience in handling cases that involved “OSIs” in the litigation. Let’s see what she has for us on an important topic.

The Importance of Other Similar Incidents

While other similar incidents (OSIs) can prove helpful in litigation based on a number of legal theories, in product liability actions OSIs are extremely important because the occurrence of other similar incidents holds great relevance as it tends to make the existence of a defect more probable than it would be without the evidence.

Admission of OSIs is within the discretion of the court. Such evidence is admissible in product liability actions when it is offered to prove:

(1) notice of a particular defect (2) the dangerousness of the defect (3) the manufacturer’s ability to correct the defect (4) lack of safety for intended uses (5) standard of care (6) strength of the product and/or (7) that the defect caused the accident or injury alleged. See Hessen v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 915 F.2d 641 (11th Cir. 1990)

However, before such evidence can be admitted, it must be shown that the prior failures occurred under conditions substantially similar to those existing during the occurrence in question and the prior incidents must not have occurred too remote in time form the incident in question. See Weeks v. Remington Arms, 733 F.2d at 1491.; Jones v. Otis Elevator, 861 F.2d 655, 662-663 (11th Cir. 1988); Ray v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 WL 6749034 (M.D. Ala. 2011).

It is worth noting that “substantially similar” does not mean identical. It is predicated on the defect at issue and “substantial similarity” among the variables relevant to plaintiff’s defect theory. Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 214 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2000).

Gathering evidence related to OSIs during discovery often proves difficult. Defendants do not like to voluntarily turn this evidence over. Further, customer contact information is often redacted by the defendant making it a task to identify the complaining customer, particularly if a Judge does not compel them to turn the information over in a manner that is not redacted. As such, it is of great importance to press the defendant for this information early.

The defendant holds the key to discovery of other similar incidents. This information is typically in the form of lawsuits against the defendant, warranty claims, recalls, governmental investigation (NHTSA, CPSC, etc.), property damage claims, and customer complaints.

It is important to begin establishing your library of OSIs early in litigation so you will be prepared at trial and so the defendant will know that you have an arsenal of other claims as this can help with negotiating a settlement. Defendants will do everything to limit the scope of OSI information that is produced. The following are a few tips on establishing your OSI library:

Ask for OSIs in discovery, including but not limited to, lawsuits, warranty claims, recalls, governmental investigations, property damage claims and customer complaints. Ask for associated photographs, videos, expert reports, accident reports, product evaluation reports and similar type documents.

Ask for the information in an unredacted format. More likely than not, you will have customer complaints, warranty information and property damage claims produced in a redacted format. There is case law that establishes if a customer complains to a company their information is not considered private or confidential. Don’t let them hide behind privacy in getting this information. You need to be able to find the complaining customers!

Don’t let the defendant limit your OSI request to just your product. If you are alleging a defect with an airbag, find out what other vehicles included that same airbag (see Takata airbag recall) and get that information. Don’t let the defendant limit you to your product if the component that is defective is used across product lines.

Ask your expert. Your expert has likely had similar claims, and you can use them to establish the claims are substantially similar.

Talk to other lawyers. Once you get lawsuit information in discovery reach out to other lawyers whose cases you think you could meet the “substantial similarity” hurdle and get non-protected information from their case. Their clients can also be a good source for an OSI witness.

Research claims, recalls and investigations with governmental entities (NHTSA, CPSC).

Google! You will be amazed at what the internet will tell you about other lawsuits. From there you can contact the appropriate people and gather the necessary documents.

In discovery request information on how claims, lawsuits, customer complaints, etc., are stored and gathered by your defendant. You need to make sure you have appropriately asked for OSI information from all sources in discovery.

Ask for a corporate representative on OSI information.

Take OSI witness depositions and make sure you video them for trial purposes. Many of these witnesses will be located out of state. For the ones that make the best appearance consider bringing them live to trial.

Don’t wait until the eve of trial to start locating and contacting potential OSI witnesses. Start your library early!

Fight, fight, fight to get the information you need and the scope of discovery you need to establish OSIs.

By insisting on OSI information early and building your library, you can ensure at the time of trial you have OSIs to present and competent evidence to establish substantial similarity and have the incidents admitted at the trial of your case.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Mary Leah.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

River Region Names Beasley Allen Best Law Firm And Best Locally Owned Business

Beasley Allen is honored to be recognized as the Best Law Firm and Best Locally Owned Business in the 2026 Community Choice Awards’ Best of the River Region. In addition, Greg Allen was named a finalist for Best Personal Injury Attorney.

These recognitions are especially meaningful because they are determined by the people who live and work throughout the River Region. We are grateful to our clients, colleagues, friends, and community members whose support made these honors possible.

Best Law Firm

Being named the River Region’s Best Law Firm reflects the trust our clients place in us when they need legal help the most. For more than 45 years, Beasley Allen has represented individuals and families in a variety of complex cases including personal injury, product liability, consumer protection, mass torts, and workplace wrongdoing.

Our lawyers and support staff are committed to pursuing justice, holding wrongdoers accountable, and helping clients rebuild their lives after serious losses. This award reflects that work and the relationships we have built throughout the communities we serve.

Best Locally Owned Business

As a firm founded in Alabama and headquartered in Montgomery, we are proud to be recognized as the Best Locally Owned Business.

Since our founding in 1979, Beasley Allen has remained deeply connected to the River Region through community service, charitable giving, local partnerships, and economic investment. While our work takes us across the country, our roots remain firmly planted in the communities we call home.

Greg Allen Named Finalist for Best Personal Injury Attorney

Greg Allen was recognized as a finalist for Best Personal Injury Attorney in the 2026 Community Choice Awards.

Throughout his career, Greg has helped individuals and families who have been seriously injured by dangerous products and corporate misconduct. His commitment to standing up for people during difficult times has earned him the trust of clients across Alabama and beyond.

This recognition reflects Greg’s dedication to helping those who need it most and his ongoing commitment to making a difference both inside and outside the courtroom. Greg has also been a mentor for Beasley Allen lawyers especially in product liability litigation. I have dealt with a huge number of lawyers over the years, and there have been some great ones, and I can say without reservation that in my opinion Greg tops the list.

Thank You to the River Region

The Community Choice Awards celebrate the businesses, organizations, and professionals that make a positive impact across the River Region. Winners and finalists are selected through public nominations and voting, making each recognition a reflection of the trust and support of the communities they serve.

We are honored by this recognition and grateful to everyone who voted for Beasley Allen. Our mission is simple: helping those who need it most. Whether we are advocating for injured individuals, supporting families during difficult times, or investing in the communities we call home, that commitment guides everything we do!

Travis Chin Receives The Albert L. Vreeland Award

Travis Chin received the Albert L. Vreeland Award at the Alabama State Bar’s Pro Bono Reception. The ceremony took place on July 16, 2026, at The Grand Hotel Golf Resort & Spa in Fairhope, Alabama.

About the Award

The Distinction: It is the organization’s highest individual pro bono award.

The Purpose: It honors an attorney who ensures access to justice for vulnerable populations.

Professional Background

Travis Chin is in the Toxic Torts Section at Beasley Allen. We all celebrate his recognition as a reflection of the firm’s core service values.

Travis joined Beasley Allen in 2024. Currently he focuses on toxic exposure cases such as Camp Lejeune water contamination, Ethylene Oxide, Bisphenol S (BPS), and heavy metals.

Travis’s commitment to pro bono service has earned him significant recognition, including the Montgomery Volunteer Lawyers Program’s Medal of Samaritan from 2022 to 2024 and being named 2024 Volunteer of the Year by both the Montgomery Volunteer Lawyers Program and the Montgomery County Bar.

Travis has also received national honors, including selection to Lawdragon’s 500 X – The Next Generation and the National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 in Alabama. Additionally, he was named to the DC Courts’ Capital Pro Bono High Honor Roll, a distinction reserved for attorneys who complete 100 or more hours of pro bono service in a single year.

Outside of the courtroom, Travis is deeply involved in the Montgomery arts community. He is an avid musician, serving as a board member and active performer with the Montgomery Symphony Orchestra, where he finds both personal fulfillment and a way to enrich his community through music. In his spare time, Travis also walks the fashion runway with a purpose as a New York Fashion Week model, with his most recent appearance being in the Fall 2025.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Elizabeth “Liz” Achtemeier

Liz is a principal in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, where she represents individuals harmed by defective drugs and medical products. She joined Beasley Allen in 2012 and has spent more than 14 years helping clients navigate complex litigation. In her role, Liz works closely with clients and litigation teams to develop legal strategies and advance cases. Liz shares that she was drawn to the legal profession because she wanted a career that would be both rewarding and intellectually challenging while providing an opportunity to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others.

Liz earned her bachelor’s degree in music education from Troy University, graduating summa cum laude, and later earned her Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law. She is active in several professional organizations, including the Alabama State Bar, the Montgomery County Bar Association, and the Alabama Association for Justice.

Outside of work, Liz enjoys spending time with her 8-year-old daughter and their yellow Labrador. She has a creative side and enjoys crocheting, knitting, cross-stitching, reading, painting, and playing music. Her hobbies provide an opportunity to relax while continuing to challenge herself in new ways.

Liz says her favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s collaborative culture. She appreciates that attorneys and staff are always willing to share their knowledge and expertise, fostering an environment where everyone works together to uphold the highest standards for clients.

Liz is a very good lawyer who does excellent work for her clients. She is a definite asset to our firm, and we are fortunate to have her with us.

Summer Cato

Summer is a staff assistant in the firm’s Mass Torts Section. She began her career with Beasley Allen as a temporary employee in 2017 and joined the firm full-time in 2018. In her role, she supports attorneys, paralegals, and other staff members across the section, helping keep cases and projects moving forward efficiently. Known for her willingness to “jump in and help,” Summer is an important part of trial teams day-to-day operations.

Outside of work, Summer enjoys spending time with her family and is proud of her three grown children and their accomplishments. Her oldest is a father to two daughters, her middle child earned a master’s degree in Publishing & Creative Writing and is writing a novel, and her youngest is pursuing a degree in Electrical Technology. Summer is also passionate about restoring her historic home, originally built in 1876, and has spent years bringing it up to modern standards. In addition, she cares for a cat colony that came with the property, along with her own beloved cats.

Summer says her favorite thing about working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s commitment to helping those who need it most. She appreciates that this philosophy extends not only to clients but also to the people who make up the firm, creating a workplace culture she finds admirable and rewarding.

We are fortunate to have Summer at Beasley Allen. She works hard and recognizes how important the firm’s work is. Summer is a definite asset in the firm.

Theresa Perkins

Theresa is a paralegal in the firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, where she has worked alongside Beasley Allen lawyer Graham Esdale for nearly 27 years, an anniversary she will celebrate in October. A graduate of Auburn University Montgomery, she earned a Bachelor of Science in Justice and Public Safety and a Legal Assistant Certificate. In her role, Theresa drafts pleadings and other legal documents, responds to discovery requests, communicates with clients and expert witnesses, and assists throughout the litigation process. She also plays a key role in preparing and organizing cases for trial.

Outside of work, Theresa enjoys spending time with her husband, Scott, and their daughter, Katherine. She and Scott have been married for 31 years and enjoy visiting their daughter in New Orleans whenever possible. Theresa is an active member of Holy Spirit Catholic Church and enjoys volunteering in her community. In her spare time, she enjoys running, bicycling, hiking, and volunteering with the Montgomery Humane Society, where she helps support efforts to place animals in loving homes. She has helped our family over the years bring home some great pups and cats to be part of our family. “Dixie Bell” is one of the best and has been at home with us for a long time.

Theresa says her favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is building relationships with clients and getting to know them throughout the course of their cases. She finds it especially rewarding to know she has helped clients pursue the best possible outcome during difficult times.

Theresa is a hard-working, dedicated employee who does excellent work. She recognizes how important Beasley Allen is for folks in real need. We are blessed to have her with the firm.

Marliee Petty

Marilee is a legal secretary in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section. She joined Beasley Allen as a staff assistant in April 2024 and was promoted to legal secretary in December 2025. In her role, she works closely with attorneys and paralegals, manages client documentation, supports the coordination of settlement-related matters, and assists with estate administration for Camp Lejeune clients. She also supports settlement teams and regularly assists with special projects to help meet critical deadlines.

A Prattville native, Marilee is the proud mother of two children, Maisie and Avery Jr. She enjoys spending time with them at the park, swimming, and exploring new foods and activities together. Marilee also loves cooking for friends and family, spending time near the water, and searching for great finds while thrift shopping. She values the close friendships she has built and considers them an important part of her extended family.

Marilee says her favorite things about working at Beasley Allen are the opportunities for career growth and the ability to interact with clients and their representatives. She enjoys taking on new responsibilities and finds a strong sense of accomplishment in helping others and successfully completing important projects.

We are fortunate to have Marliee at Beasley Allen. She is a definite asset who does very good work.

Dana Taunton

Dana joined Beasley Allen in 1998 and is a principal in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. Her practice primarily focuses on brief writing and appellate work. Dana had handled numerous personal injury and product liability cases as the lead lawyer before moving into her new and very important role several years ago. Dana has also been involved in complex business and commercial litigation for the firm.

Dana grew up in Butler, Alabama. She attended The University of Alabama School of Law without intending to become a lawyer, earning her Juris Doctorate in 1993. She planned to join the FBI or another federal law enforcement agency, but she says God had better plans for her.

Dana says her role as a lawyer allows her to practice Beasley Allen’s motto of “helping those who need it most.” She adds:

What drew me into the profession and kept me there is that I genuinely enjoy helping people. It is an opportunity to confront a wrong and to right that wrong in a very real and positive way that can change a life. It has been an incredible and wonderful journey to continually be presented with opportunities to help people throughout my legal career. Being a lawyer never fails to present new and interesting challenges. No case is exactly like the other. It is that constant challenge and overcoming that challenge on behalf of a client that keeps me going.

Grateful to practice at Beasley Allen, Dana explains what makes the firm unique. She says:

A lawyer can positively affect every facet of society. We see that in the work we do at Beasley Allen—not only by representing clients who need help, but also through our community involvement with local bar associations. From helping people in Selma recover from devastating tornadoes to supporting the Mercy House, these are just a few examples of how lawyers can make a difference. Beasley Allen continually encourages and supports its lawyers in being a voice for the voiceless, staying active in the community, and promoting real, positive changes in people’s lives.

Dana is a member of several professional associations, including the American Association for Justice and the Montgomery County Association for Justice. She is also active in the Alabama Association for Justice (ALAJ), serving on the AMICUS Committee and the Editorial Board for ALAJ Magazine. Dana has served as Chairperson of the Alabama State Bar Women’s Section. In addition, she has served on the Alabama State Bar Bench & Bar Relations Task Force, Improving the Image of Lawyers Task Force, and Diversity in the Profession Committee.

Dana is a Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent-rated lawyer. She was also selected for inclusion in the Benchmark Appellate 2013 edition, a definitive reference guide recognizing the nation’s top appeals litigation firms and their lawyers.

Appellate work is challenging and requires experience and specialized knowledge to succeed. We are blessed to have Dana with the firm. She is a tremendously talented lawyer who does excellent work in a very important role at Beasley Allen.

Favorite Bible Verses

In this month’s issue, two of our staff employees share their favorite Bible verses.

Theresa Perkins

Theresa’s favorite verse was shared with her by Mrs. Willa Carpenter many years ago. This verse has served as a source of comfort and strength through times of grief, loss, and everyday worries. It reminds her to turn her anxieties into prayers and to approach life and its challenges with a spirit of gratitude.

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:6-7

Marilee Petty

Marilee’s first verse focuses on strength and dignity. It speaks of staying strong and not falling to the pressures of life and having faith that this too shall pass.

God is within her, she will not fall; God will help her at break of day. Psalm 46:5

The second verse emphasizes that a genuine friend offers unwavering love, regardless of the circumstances, and that close relationships are especially vital during difficult and trying times. She believes that it takes a village to navigate life and she is super thankful for the village that she’s created for her and her children.

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

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

Seven Months: More Than $393 Million in Results

In just seven months, Beasley Allen lawyers secured more than $393 million in verdicts and settlements on behalf of clients across the country. These results reflect the firm’s commitment to taking on complex, high-stakes cases and pursuing justice for individuals and families facing life-altering injuries, wrongful deaths, and other significant losses. Among the firm’s notable results this year are:

• $56 Million Wrongful Death Trucking Settlement
• $43.5 Million Catastrophic Explosion Settlement
• $40 Million Talc Verdict
• $31.25 Million On-the-Job Settlement
• $30 Million Products Liability Verdict Against Nissan
• $25.8 Million Arbitration Verdict Against Terminix
• $25 Million Trucking Settlement
• $15.5 Million Aviation Settlement

These outcomes span a wide range of litigation areas and demonstrate the depth of experience, resources, and trial readiness Beasley Allen brings to every case. While no two cases are alike, the firm’s results-driven approach continues to help clients secure the accountability and compensation they deserve.

Beasley Allen values its relationships with referring attorneys. We welcome opportunities to collaborate on complex cases nationwide. We will be honored to put our resources to work for you.

MONTHLY REMINDERS

We continue to include this section of “reminders” in the Report. That’s because we believe each of the reminders is very important. The reminders are from key individuals and 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

Let’s not assume for one moment that our work is done, the struggle for equal justice continues

Fred D. Gray

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

I was asked recently to explain the difference in a “lawyer” and an “attorney.” I must confess that I had never considered there to be any real difference. I am a trial lawyer and have generally considered that I was a lawyer in that capacity. But I have also been called an “attorney” regularly. So, I did a little research on the subject. I found that some groups make a designation based on the type work the individual does. For example, some say generally that a “lawyer” does mostly office type work, with an “attorney” being a lawyer who goes to court. So, I suppose I would be considered an attorney under that criteria. But at this stage of my career, I will remain being a lawyer who has been going to court on behalf of clients as an attorney since 1972.

To access this publication online, update an address, or to contact us about this publication, please visit BeasleyAllen.com. This is an advertisement