The Jere Beasley Report December 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

I was asked recently by a news reporter if the public really trusts the judicial system. That’s a question deserving an answer. I have been involved in the system as a trial lawyer for a very long time. I learned years ago that the American people trust the system and will resist any drastic changes that would weaken the system. I am convinced that the judicial system, including the right to trial by jury, is supported universally. In fact, the Constitutional right to trial by jury is an essential part of the system. 

The judicial system must be independent, fair, unbiased and strong. It’s also necessary that the courts, including judges at every level, treat everybody equally under the law. That’s a basic requirement in a nation that is classified as a Democratic Republic.

We must all recognize that the United States is a Democratic Republic. This combines the elements of both systems. Our citizens elect officials to make decisions, and that makes our nation a Republic. It’s a democracy because the people hold the ultimate power. That’s because they elect their representatives. The government in our country is also based on a constitution. The Constitution sets limits on the power of government. 

Lawyers, as participants, are a part of the judicial system. They must follow ethical rules as participants in the system. That definitely requires lawyers to have total respect for the law. Failure to do so must have consequences. The lawyers at Beasley Allen are required to do things in the right way and for the right reason. That includes our participation in the judicial system. 

So, my answer to the reporter was short and to the point: “Yes, the American people trust the judicial system, and I hope and pray that never changes!”

TALC LITIGATION

Talc Litigation Update

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is grappling with a wave of lawsuits alleging its talcum powder products caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. As of November 2025, more than 90,000 claims have been filed against the company and other manufacturers, accusing them of selling asbestos-contaminated talc without warning consumers of the risks. 

The litigation has produced staggering verdicts. In October, a California jury ordered J&J to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died from mesothelioma after decades of using its baby powder. The award included $950 million in punitive damages, underscoring jurors’ view of J&J’s wrongdoing. Last month, a Florida jury in Broward County awarded $20 million in a similar case, where a physician passed away in 2022 from mesothelioma after 50 years of daily talcum powder use. 

J&J has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, maintaining that its products are safe and asbestos-free. The company’s attempts to escape litigation through bankruptcy have failed three times, with a U.S. judge rejecting J&J’s $10 billion settlement plan earlier this year and forcing J&J back into the tort system. 

A bellwether trial with two plaintiffs, spearheaded by Beasley Allen’s trial team, is currently underway in the California JCCP (consolidated litigation) in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, involving ovarian cancer claims, with the trial projected to run into this month. Additional talcum powder and ovarian cancer trials are set for the Philadelphia state court in mid-January, the New Jersey state court in March and April, Georgia and Illinois state courts in April, and in Florida and Illinois state courts this summer.  

With thousands of cases pending and verdicts climbing into the billions, Beasley Allen lawyers remain at the forefront of the litigation to hold the company responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of women and seek justice for the women and their families.  

We will continue to keep our readers updated on this litigation. Johnson & Johnson, a powerful corporate giant, will eventually be forced to do the right thing and pay for its wrongful conduct that has caused misery for women who trusted the company and never knew they were being slowly killed. 

Ex-FDA Chief Testifies J&J Hid Talc Risks For Decades

Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler testified in the Los Angeles bellwether trial that Johnson & Johnson concealed evidence of asbestos contamination in its talc products for decades. He testified that internal documents dating back to the 1970s show the company knew its talc contained chrysotile and tremolite fibers, but J&J pressured scientists and misled regulators to protect its products. Under cross-examination, Dr. Kessler maintained that the FDA never acted against talc because J&J withheld crucial evidence, stressing that the burden was on the company to prove safety.

The case, brought by plaintiffs Monica Kent and Deborah Schultz, is among thousands nationwide alleging J&J’s talc products caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. Their lawyers say decades of use of Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower led to cancer diagnoses, while J&J denies wrongdoing and points to studies it claims showed talc was safe. The trial follows J&J’s failed attempts to resolve claims through bankruptcy, including a rejected $10 billion deal earlier this year, and comes after a $966 million verdict in October against the company in a separate mesothelioma case.

During his testimony, Dr. Kessler highlighted a 1972 meeting where J&J and the FDA agreed to retest talc samples after asbestos was detected, alleging the company withheld results showing tremolite fibers. He also pointed to a 1970s Harvard and NIOSH study, claiming J&J influenced authors to delete references to asbestos from an early draft. Dr. Kessler insisted his role is about public health, not advocacy, and urged the jury to consider the historical record of J&J’s internal documents as the trial continues.

Kent is represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Andy Birchfield, Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, David Dearing, Ryan Beattie, Leanna Pittard, Matt Teague and Jennifer Emmel and Margaret M. Thompson. 

The Schultzes are represented by Daniel S. Robinson, Paul Dagostino, Genevieve Outlaw, Wes Polischuk, and Michael Olson of Robinson Calcagnie Inc.

The cases are Monica Kent v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 17CV318672, and Deborah Schultz et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 20CV0476, both in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

The ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) continues as set out above. Beasley Allen took on J&J in the very beginning. We will continue to battle J&J on every front and do so as long as necessary. While J&J’s fraudulent bankruptcy attempts delayed justice for thousands of victims, our lawyers have not backed down. Beasley Allen lawyers will continue to fight this battle in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. Justice will ultimately be served for the thousands of J&J victims and their families.

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

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one. Rest assured, our lawyers will not back down. Beasley Allen will continue its battle with J&J, and our clients’ best interests are at the top of our list of priorities.  

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

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

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

New Diagnoses, Old Exposure: The Fight Over Claim Accrual Under CLJA

A key battle is taking place in the ongoing Camp Lejeune litigation.  It involves this central question:   If a claimant files a timely CLJA action, can a condition diagnosed after the Act’s enactment still fall within its scope? This issue matters because many exposure-related diseases appear years later, raising complex questions about accrual, statutory interpretation, and the treatment of newly discovered injuries.

DOJ’s Position

The Department of Justice interprets the CLJA’s applicability provision to bar claims for injuries that are both distinct and discovered after August 10, 2022. DOJ acknowledges that a timely filed claim may include additional harm or complications related to an existing injury. However, it argues that conditions constituting separate diseases—biologically and causally distinct from earlier diagnoses—cannot be added if diagnosed after the Act’s enactment. In DOJ’s view, even when a claimant timely files based on an accrued injury, any “new” condition diagnosed after August 10, 2022, falls outside the Act’s scope.

Plaintiffs’ Response

Plaintiffs challenge DOJ’s interpretation of the “separate disease rule” and contend that the CLJA created one unified cause of action per claimant, encompassing all injuries arising from Camp Lejeune exposure. The statute neither requires nor permits separate lawsuits for each disease. Both the standard administrative claim form (SF-95) and the Short Form Complaints reinforce this interpretation by directing claimants to list multiple injuries under a single claim.

Further, the CLJA incorporates Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) procedures, including 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b), which expressly allows recovery for “newly discovered evidence.” Courts applying § 2675(b) in analogous contexts have permitted later-emerging injuries to be included in an existing claim, recognizing that such injuries could not have been reasonably discovered earlier. In those cases, courts not only allowed inclusion of the new injury but also held that damage awards were not limited to the amount originally stated on the administrative claim form.

Why the Separate Disease Rule Doesn’t Apply

The separate disease rule typically extends statutes of limitations for second lawsuits filed years later. The purpose of this rule is to preserve recovery for later-developing conditions—not to restrict it. Applying that doctrine here would invert its policy rationale and conflict with Congress’s intent under the CLJA. Just as the rule permits recovery for multiple diseases caused by the same exposure, so should the CLJA when the original claim was timely filed.

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Litigation Team 

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

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

The lawyers on our litigation team are available and will be honored to work with other lawyers on a claim. They will also be available to answer any questions you may have about the litigation.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Judge Denies Social Media Giants Attempts To Dismiss Lawsuits

Plaintiffs represented by Beasley Allen and its partner law firms won a huge victory recently in California-based litigation against the Big Four social media companies. Lawyers for Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap had filed motions for summary judgment against certain bellwether plaintiffs’ claims, requesting Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl to dismiss the claims against them prior to the first bellwether trial, scheduled for January 2026. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ platforms harm young users’ mental health. 

Judge Kuhl denied the social media giants’ motions to dismiss, paving the way for three bellwether trials starting January 27. The judge ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not shield the defendants from liability for platform design choices.

The social media companies had argued the claims were barred by either Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which provides legal immunity for publishers of online content, or the First Amendment’s free speech protections. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to show causation.

The lawsuits, brought by three minors—R.K.C., Heaven Moore, and K.G.M.—claim that addictive features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and reward systems contributed to psychological harm. Judge Kuhl found sufficient evidence to support claims of negligence, failure to warn, and fraudulent concealment. She criticized the companies for improperly seeking rulings on isolated issues rather than entire claims. Judge Kuhl reaffirmed her earlier position that Section 230 and First Amendment protections do not apply to design features that allegedly cause harm, regardless of the content viewed.

In one example, R.K.C. testified that Meta’s app notifications caused anxiety and sleep deprivation, and his father said he would have acted differently had he been warned. Judge Kuhl also dismissed arguments from TikTok, Snap, and Meta regarding statutes of limitations and minimal platform usage, stating these are factual disputes for a jury to decide. Meta’s claim that Moore’s failure to read its terms of service absolves it of responsibility was also rejected, as was TikTok’s similar defense in K.G.M.’s case.

Google was granted partial summary judgment on one claim but remains a defendant in R.K.C.’s broader negligence case. You will recall that Judge Kuhl also ordered top executives—Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel—to testify in the upcoming trials.

These cases are part of a larger coordinated proceeding involving over 1,000 lawsuits in California, accusing tech companies of intentionally designing platforms to foster compulsive use among youth. Parallel federal litigation is underway, with bellwether trials expected in 2026.

The plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel Mariana McConnell of Kiesel Law, Rachel Lanier of Lanier Law Firm, Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea Ravipudi and Beasley Allen lawyer Joseph VanZandt.

The bellwether cases are R.K.C. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 23STCV31485, R.Q.U. et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 23STCV31501, and P.F. et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 23SMCV03371, the JCCP case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255, and lead case number 22STCV21355, all in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Source: Law360

Plaintiffs Push Meta to Unveil Hidden Teen Research

Plaintiffs in the Los Angeles litigation are asking Judge Carolyn Kuhl to compel Meta to produce unredacted internal documents that they say reveal that attorneys pressured company researchers to alter or delete studies about social media’s impact on young users. The plaintiffs contend that attorney-client privilege does not apply because the crime-fraud exception is triggered, pointing to a recent ruling by a Washington, D.C. judge who found Meta’s lawyers directed researchers to modify findings on teen mental health risks to reduce liability.

The disputed documents include communications showing attorneys advising researchers to excise evidence of teen vulnerability, block or redesign studies, and shape presentations for executives to avoid scrutiny. Former Meta employees Cayce Savage and Jason Sattizahn testified before Congress that lawyers threatened researchers and used privilege claims to hide damaging results, reinforcing the plaintiffs’ position that Meta misused legal protections to suppress unfavorable research.

Meta rejects these allegations, insisting its legal team acted appropriately and that it continues to support youth-related research. A company spokesperson noted that since 2022, Meta has approved dozens of studies on social issues affecting young people and hundreds more on other youth-related matters. Lawyers for the plaintiffs counter that children, families, and schools harmed by social media addiction deserve transparency and that disclosure of the documents is necessary for justice.

The dispute comes ahead of the January bellwether trial in Los Angeles, part of a broader multidistrict litigation involving more than 1,000 consolidated complaints. These cases allege that social media companies deliberately foster compulsive use among minors, making the outcome of this motion potentially significant for the trajectory of the litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph VanZandt and Davis Vaughn of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Mariana A. McConnell, Paul R. Kiesel and Cherisse H. Cleofe of Kiesel Law LLP, Rachel Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm PC, Josh Autry of Morgan & Morgan PA, and Rahul Ravipudi, Brian J. Panish, Ian Samson and Jesse Creed of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP.

The case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team

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

Social Media Litigation Team

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

THE GAMING LITIGATION

Tribes Sue Internet “Prediction Market” Operators For Engaging In Unlawful Gaming

Historically, futures and prediction markets have been used to trade contracts on commodity prices for risk management and other lawful purposes. For example, a business affected by oil prices might enter a futures contract to buy oil at a fixed price in three months, protecting against price hikes. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulates these markets. Operators in the market can submit their contracts to the CFTC for approval or “self-certify” them as lawful under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which is the usual practice. 

Kalshi Inc. (Kalshi) and Robinhood Markets, Inc. (Robinhood) operate a nationwide internet-based prediction market that is used to place bets.  Unlike online gambling sites, instead of betting directly, users on Kalshi enter into contracts based on the outcome of sporting events, elections, and other real-world events. Kalshi “self-certified” its event contracts as well as “swaps” under the CEA, which are contracts that are dependent on the occurrence of an event or contingency with a financial consequence. However, as several courts recently noted, event contracts and swaps differ in a fundamental way – swaps concern the occurrence of an event, such as a security reaching a set price on a future date, whereas an event contract is based on the outcome of a sporting or other event, which is gambling. Notably, the CEA permits the CFTC to bar gambling contracts as against the public interest. Because Kalshi self-certified its contracts, the CFTC did not have an opportunity to pass on whether they are against the public interest.

In September 2025, three tribes operating casinos in California sued Kalshi and Robinhood for offering sports-related and other event contracts because they are accessible on tribal lands, including in casinos. In Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. Kalshi Inc. and Robinhood, No. 25-cv-6162-JSC (ND CA), the tribes alleged these contracts constitute gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which gives the Tribes authority over gaming on tribal lands, and violate tribal-state agreements governing gaming on Indian lands. 

The tribes also claimed Kalshi’s advertising—such as “Sports Betting Legal in all 50 States on Kalshi”—was false and misleading in violation of the Lanham Act, because online sports betting is not legal on tribal lands in the states. The tribes also asserted claims for civil RICO conspiracy, violations of state consumer protection statutes and violations of tribal ordinances.

In October, the tribes moved to enjoin Kalshi’s event contracts on tribal lands and to bar Kalshi from making marketing statements that they are legal in the 50 states. The tribes argued they were entitled to an injunction because they had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their IGRA and Lanham Act claims and suffered ongoing irreparable harm to tribal sovereignty, economic interests, and regulatory authority.

In response, Kalshi argued that IGRA does not apply because it regulates gaming “on Indian lands,” meaning physical operations, not internet-based activity. Kalshi contended that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) specifically governs internet gaming and carves out CFTC-regulated derivatives trading like Kalshi’s event contracts. 

Because Kalshi self-certified its contracts, the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction, and the contracts are lawful unless the CFTC determines otherwise. Regarding the Lanham Act claims, Kalshi argued the challenged statement was an opinion about legality, not a provably false fact, and thus not actionable, and that the Tribes could not show they suffered commercial injury.

The court denied the preliminary injunction, holding that the tribes failed to establish a likelihood of success on their Lanham Act and IGRA claims. The court agreed with Kalshi that its marketing statement was not a false statement of fact, noting multiple courts have upheld Kalshi’s contracts as lawful under federal law. On the IGRA claim, the court held that IGRA restricts tribal conduct, not third-party operators, rejecting the tribes’ argument that, under IGRA, “the Tribe is the only entity authorized to conduct class III gaming on its lands. 

There would be no reason to prohibit third parties from internet gaming on tribal lands. More critically, the court ruled that UIGEA governs internet gaming and exempts CEA-regulated transactions, placing Kalshi’s contracts outside IGRA’s reach. 

Despite its ruling, the court stated it “does not take lightly plaintiffs’ concerns about the effects Kalshi’s activities might have on tribal sovereignty and the Tribes’ finances,” and noted that Kalshi’s self-certification process may have been designed for the very purpose of insulating its activities from judicial review. The court’s discomfort may signal rulings favorable to the Tribes in the future, especially if other pending cases involving states’ authority to regulate gambling hold event contracts are unlawful. In the meantime, the court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in Blue Lake Ranchera may result in additional litigation involving strategic recalibration of the interplay of IGRA, UIGEA, and the CEA by other tribes. 

VIDEO GAMING LITIGATION

National Legal Action Targets Video Game Addiction And Online Exploitation

An increasing number of lawsuits filed by parents across the United States allege that popular video games such as Fortnite, Roblox, and Minecraft are intentionally designed to be addictive, causing serious harm to children and adolescents. In response, a motion has been submitted to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to consolidate these cases into a single federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

The JPML is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the video game addiction MDL petition on December 4th in Austin, Texas. This proposed MDL would centralize pretrial proceedings for the growing number of federal lawsuits, streamlining discovery and avoiding inconsistent rulings. A similar effort to coordinate related cases in California state courts has already been approved, resulting in a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) currently underway in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Separately, Roblox Corporation is also facing a distinct MDL petition involving allegations of child sexual exploitation. These lawsuits claim that Roblox lacks adequate safety protocols, enabling predators to use the platform to groom, exploit, and initiate contact with minors—often leading to abuse that extends beyond the game itself. The JPML will also hear arguments on this exploitation-related MDL petition on December 4th.

These parallel legal efforts underscore the growing scrutiny of gaming platforms marketed to children and the urgent need for stronger industry safety standards and accountability.

At Beasley Allen, our lawyers are committed to holding gaming companies accountable—not only for the harm caused by design practices that foster addiction, but also for their failure to protect young users from exploitation.

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

Tragedy in Transit: $4 Million Trucking Settlement

On a September morning in Coffee County, Alabama, a husband and wife were driving along Alabama Highway 134. It was an ordinary day—until a tractor-trailer barreled through a clearly marked stop sign at an intersection. The impact with the couple’s vehicle was catastrophic.

The wife, a beloved member of her family and community, lost her life. Her husband, seated beside her, suffered serious injuries as well. In a matter of seconds, their world was shattered.

The $4 Million Settlement

After months of legal proceedings, Ben Locklar, the Beasley Allen lawyer representing the plaintiffs, reached a $4 million settlement of the case. Ben says that while no amount of money can replace a loved one, this settlement provided financial relief for medical expenses, lost income, and emotional suffering. Settlements like this send a clear message: trucking companies must prioritize safety and ensure drivers follow the rules of the road.

Why Trucking Cases Matter

Collisions involving commercial trucks are among the most dangerous on our roads. Tractor-trailers can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, and when drivers fail to follow basic safety rules—like stopping at a sign—the results are often catastrophic.

Trucking cases are complex. They involve not only the driver but also the company that owns the truck, enforces safety standards, and sets schedules. These cases often uncover systemic issues such as inadequate training, unrealistic delivery deadlines, or poor maintenance practices.

Protecting Your Rights After a Truck Accident

If you or a loved one has been involved in a trucking accident, it’s critical to do the following:

• Seek immediate medical attention;

• Document the scene and injuries;

• Contact an experienced truck accident attorney; and

• Preserve evidence such as police reports and witness statements.

Legal representation can make the difference between a minimal payout and a fair settlement that covers all losses.

The Bigger Picture: Road Safety

Every driver—especially those operating large commercial vehicles—has a responsibility to protect lives. Stop signs and safety regulations exist for a reason. Ignoring them can lead to tragedy and costly legal consequences.

Beasley Allen lawyers handling motor vehicle crash litigation leverage extensive knowledge to secure the best possible outcomes for their clients, bringing decades of experience and a proven track record to the cases. 

$2.65 Million Settlement Secured After Deadly Dauphin Island Crash

On a warm July evening in 2024, what should have been a routine summer drive turned into a tragedy that shook the Dauphin Island community to its core. An automobile, driven by a local resident, crossed the center line on Dauphin Island Bridge and struck a pickup truck occupied by a vacationing family and friends from Arkansas. The impact was catastrophic, resulting in serious injuries to the Arkansas family and the tragic loss of a child’s life.  

The crash forced the closure of the Dauphin Island Bridge and sent shockwaves through the community. Families, friends, and neighbors rallied together in grief and support as news spread of the heartbreaking injuries and loss.

Among the victims were parents and children whose lives were forever changed. These families endured unimaginable pain—serious physical injuries, emotional trauma, and the grief of losing a child. Beyond the immediate medical needs, they faced long-term challenges: ongoing care, financial strain, and the heavy burden of rebuilding their lives after such a sudden and senseless tragedy.

The Fight for Justice

Beasley Allen lawyers filed suit in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, alleging negligence, wrongful death, and loss of services. The complaint detailed how the defendant failed to yield and violated her duty to operate her vehicle safely, causing irreversible harm.

Our team pursued justice for:

• Negligence

• Wrongful death of a minor

• Loss of services for parents who lost the love, companionship, and care of their children

Justice Delivered

After months of litigation and advocacy, Ben Locklar secured a $2.65 million settlement for the families. While no amount of money can ever replace a child or erase the suffering endured, this resolution provides critical financial relief for medical expenses, emotional distress, and future care needs. Just as importantly, it sends a powerful message about the importance of safe driving and accountability on Alabama’s roads.

A Commitment to Families

At Beasley Allen, we believe in standing up for victims when negligence changes lives forever. This case is a reminder that behind every lawsuit is a story—a family, a child, a community forever changed. It is our mission to make sure those stories are heard, that justice is pursued, and that accountability is enforced.

The Dauphin Island crash is a sobering reminder of how quickly lives can be altered by a single act of negligence. For the families involved, the settlement represents not only financial relief but also recognition of their suffering and a step toward healing.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Tesla

The families of Jeffrey and Michelle Bauer, two victims of a fatal Tesla crash in Verona last November, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the electric car manufacturer. The suit alleges that the 2016 Tesla Model S they were riding in became engulfed in flames after veering off the highway and striking a tree. According to the complaint, the vehicle lost power during the fire, rendering the electronic door handles inoperable and trapping the passengers inside. Although Tesla includes a manual door release, the lawsuit claims it is hidden, unlabeled, and impractical to use in an emergency.

Andrew McDevitt, lead attorney for the family, emphasized that the inability to escape the burning vehicle may have been the difference between life and death. He criticized Tesla’s design, stating that it introduced a new safety hazard by changing how doors function under extreme conditions. The suit will also involve flaws in the car’s high-voltage lithium-ion battery. It’s claimed that the battery lacked protective features to prevent heat transfer during a crash. Witnesses reportedly heard voices from inside the vehicle for several minutes after the crash, indicating the victims were alive but unable to escape.

The family has stated that they want their lawsuit to prompt changes in vehicle safety standards and to raise awareness about hidden dangers in modern car designs. That’s why it’s so critically important to keep the civil court system alive and well.

Tesla Sanctioned For Withholding Crash Test Documents In Fatal Model 3 Lawsuit

Judge Michael A. Robinson, a Florida state court judge, has sanctioned Tesla Inc. for obstructing the discovery process in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a 2021 crash involving a Tesla Model 3. The crash, which occurred in Coral Gables, Florida, killed 20-year-old Nicholas Garcia and his 19-year-old passenger, Jazmin Alcala, after the vehicle struck a speed bump at 90 mph, lost control, and burst into flames. The victims’ families allege in their lawsuit that Tesla’s Model 3 was defectively designed with a dangerously low chassis and inadequate suspension that failed to protect the battery during normal driving conditions.

Judge Robinson ruled that Tesla repeatedly failed to comply with a November 2023 court order requiring the production of all testing materials related to the Model 3’s performance on speed bumps and uneven surfaces.

Tesla delayed production for months and ultimately submitted over 123,000 pages of documents just weeks before trial—stripped of metadata and file names, rendering them nearly unusable. Judge Robinson criticized Tesla’s actions as intentionally burdensome, noting that plaintiffs would have to print and manually sort the documents to make sense of them.

Judge Robinson found Tesla’s claims that certain test incident reports (TIRs) could not be located were false. Interestingly, during a deposition, Tesla produced the missing TIRs within 90 minutes, further undermining its earlier assertions. Judge Robinson concluded that Tesla’s conduct was aimed at making the plaintiffs’ review more difficult, time-consuming, and costly. He ordered Tesla to pay attorney fees and litigation costs, with the exact amount to be determined at a future hearing.

The trial has been postponed to January due to these discovery violations, and the judge warned that continued noncompliance could result in severe sanctions, including adverse jury instructions or dismissal of Tesla’s defenses.

The plaintiffs are represented by Todd R. Falzone, John J. Uustal and Joshua S. Novak of Kelley Uustal and Noreek “Nick” Davitian of Davitian Law.

The case is Alcala et al. v. Tesla Florida Inc. et al., case number CACE21018394, in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Florida.

Source: Law360

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Over Fatal Battery Defect

For the Feliciano family of Alabama, August 8, 2023, began like any other summer day. Abimael Feliciano, a devoted husband and father, set out on his usual drive through Dothan, Alabama, behind the wheel of his 2015 Ford C-Max. He had no reason to suspect that his car—a trusted companion for years—would become the source of an unimaginable tragedy.

But as the morning unfolded, something went terribly wrong. Abimael was found stopped at a red light, unresponsive, slumped over the steering wheel. First responders rushed to the scene, only to be met by a strong, rotten egg odor filling the car’s cabin.

The Hidden Danger Revealed

Investigators discovered that the battery’s vent tube—a small but crucial part designed to safely channel fumes outside the vehicle—had become disconnected and trapped under the battery. This allowed poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas to seep directly into the passenger compartment. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences determined that Abimael’s cause of death was hydrogen sulfide toxicity.

A Family’s Loss and a Call for Answers

For his wife, Trina, and their daughter, Alina, the loss was devastating. 

The Feliciano family’s story has now become a call to action. Their lawyers at Beasley Allen, led by Mike Andrews, have filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and several Arizona dealerships, alleging that design flaws, missing safety features, and negligent repairs all played a role in Abimael’s death. The suit claims that Ford failed to install basic safety measures—like sensors or alarms to detect toxic fumes—and did not warn consumers about the risks of placing the battery inside the car’s passenger area.

A Message for All Drivers

The Felicianos hope their story will raise awareness about the importance of automotive safety and encourage car owners to ask questions about the vehicles they drive every day. They want other families to know the risks—and to demand that manufacturers put safety first.

As the case moves forward, the Feliciano family’s message is clear: No one should lose a loved one to a hidden danger in their car. Their fight is not just for justice, but for safer roads for everyone.

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS 

November Motor Vehicle Recalls

In November 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced multiple major auto recalls affecting brands like Mazda, Chrysler/Jeep, Toyota/Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, BMW/MINI, Ford, Tesla, and Maserati. Issues range from battery fire risks to rearview camera failures, seat defects, and braking system malfunctions.

Mazda

• Recall ID: 25V737
• Models: 2025 Mazda CX-50, CX-50 Hybrid
• Issue: Front suspension bolts may not be tightened properly, risking loss of vehicle control.

Chrysler (FCA US, LLC)

• Recall ID: 25V741
• Models: Jeep Grand Cherokee (2022–2026), Jeep Wrangler (2020–2025)
• Issue: High-voltage battery may fail and cause a fire.

Toyota / Lexus

• Recall ID: 25V744
• Models: Lexus ES (2023–2025), ES Hybrid, GX (2024–2025), LC (2024–2025), LC Hybrid
• Issue: Rearview camera image may not display, violating FMVSS 111 safety standards.

Mercedes-Benz

• Recall ID: 25V711, 25V725
• Models: 2025 AMG G 63, G 580; 2023–2024 Sprinter 2500
• Issues:
  • Software bug disabling Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB).
  • Improperly reinforced frame member in Sprinter vans.

BMW / MINI

• Recall ID: 25V717
• Models: Various 2026 BMW/MINI vehicles
• Issue: Structural and safety defects (details vary by model).

Ford

• Recall ID: 25SB5
• Models: 2021–2023 Bronco (163,256 units), plus other Ford vehicles
• Issues:
  • Loose/dislodged seat frame pivot bolts.
  • Moonroof wind deflector clips inadequately attached (174,853 vehicles).
• Scale: Over 474,000 Ford vehicles recalled.

Tesla

• Models: Tesla Cybertruck
• Issue: Safety concerns including structural defects and risk of parts detaching while driving.

Maserati

• Models: Various Maserati vehicles (details not fully disclosed)
• Issue: Safety-related recalls announced alongside Ford, BMW, and Tesla.

November 2025 was a high-volume recall month, with Ford leading in numbers (474,000+ vehicles) and Jeep/Toyota recalls tied to fire and visibility risks. Luxury brands like Mercedes, BMW, and Tesla also faced serious safety notices.

PRODUCT LIABILITY Litigation

Mobile Office Files Product Liability Case For Lack Of Guarding

Lawyers in our Mobile office continue to focus on product liability cases that involve inadequate or defective guarding on machinery.  One of those lawyers, Evan Allen, recently filed a case in the Circuit Court of Mobile County involving a commercial meat smoker that had an exposed fan blade.  The fan blade lacked any form of guarding and was within reach of users and operators.  As a result of the exposed hazard, Evan’s client suffered an amputation injury to her left hand.  

Machine designers have an obligation to design products that are reasonably safe.  If a known hazard cannot be designed out of a machine, the designer and manufacturer must ensure that the hazard is guarded against.  Unfortunately, all too often, machines are unguarded, inadequately guarded, or use the wrong type of guard.  In many instances, productivity and ease of use are given more weight in machine design than user safety.  

Failure to adequately guard against hazards can cause any number of injuries, including amputations, lacerations, and even death.  Every severe injury involving a machine must be examined on a case-by-case basis.  In this particular case handled by Evan, due to a lack of guarding on the meat smoker fan blade, his client will face years of challenges as she navigates life with the amputation injury.  

Automobile Product Liability – An Additional Avenue Of Recovery

Personal injury lawyers at Beasley Allen frequently handle cases involving catastrophic injuries from car crashes caused by negligent drivers. Many of these cases have defendants with only minimal liability coverage. For example, the limits can be as low as $25,000 in Georgia. In most situations, our lawyers work tirelessly to uncover every available source of insurance and secure all available policy limits. Once that process is completed, many lawyers typically close the case.

This common approach by all too many lawyers often overlooks a critical opportunity: pursuing a claim against the automobile manufacturer. Vehicle defects can play a significant role in the course and severity of injuries. Manufacturers have a legal duty to design, test, and inspect their vehicles to ensure safety before their vehicles reach the market.

Some of the most common motor vehicles defects to watch for include:

• Defective Airbags

• Brake Failure

• Sudden Unintended Acceleration

• Tire blowouts caused by defective design or manufacturing flaws

• Fuel System Leaks or post-collision fuel-fed fires

• Seatbelt Defects

• Roof Collapse

• Steering Malfunctions

• Seatback Failures

Each of these defects can dramatically increase the risk of severe injury or death. Identifying such issues will open the door to additional recovery for clients—beyond the limited insurance coverage of the at-fault driver.

It is absolutely critical in these cases to preserve the vehicle—preventing any repairs, destruction, or sale—because the vehicle itself is often the most important piece of evidence. Automobile product liability claims demand extensive investigation, expert analysis, and significant resources to uncover design or manufacturing defects that caused or contributed to the injuries.

Beasley Allen lawyers who handle Product Liability cases have extensive experience handling complex defective vehicle cases. If you have a matter that involves an auto defect, lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section are available to review the case and help you determine the best course of action.

NTSB Finds Loose Wire Caused Dali Blackout Leading To Key Bridge Collapse

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has concluded that a single loose wire caused the power failure aboard the container ship Dali, leading to its collision with Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26, 2024. The blackout left the vessel without propulsion or steering. It struck a support column, causing the bridge to collapse and killing six road workers. Investigators found the wire had been improperly installed with a labeling band that prevented full insertion into its terminal block, leaving it vulnerable to disconnection. The NTSB noted that infrared thermal imaging during inspections could have detected the flaw.

The board also determined that Maryland officials had not adequately assessed the bridge’s vulnerability to vessel strikes, despite prior recommendations. While quick actions by pilots and police prevented more vehicles from entering the bridge, the absence of a warning system meant construction workers on the span were not alerted in time to escape. The NTSB emphasized that the tragedy was preventable, citing both the ship’s earlier blackouts and the lack of protective countermeasures for the bridge.

The ship’s owner and operator, Grace Ocean Pte. Ltd. and Synergy Marine Pte. Ltd., pledged continued cooperation with authorities and acknowledged the findings regarding electrical issues and bridge vulnerabilities. It should be noted that the Maryland Transportation Authority says the collapse was solely the fault of the vessel and its operators, and said the ongoing rebuild will include modern fender protection systems. The incident shut down access to the Port of Baltimore for months, underscoring the far-reaching impact of the disaster.

Source: Law360

AVIATION LITIGATION

Flight 171: The Crash That Could Rewrite Aviation History

The crash of Air India Flight 171 near Ahmedabad is more than a singular tragedy—it’s a piercing echo of aviation’s long and turbulent history. As families mourn the loss of lives aboard the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the call for truth reverberates across continents. But to truly understand what went wrong, we must look backward—at the ghosts of past disasters, the evolution of aircraft technology, and the systemic failures that all too often continue to haunt the skies.

Beasley Allen represents more than 125 families from India and around the world—each mourning the loss of a parent, child, sibling or spouse. Let’s take a look at the past and then into the current situation. 

Echoes of the Past: Lessons Unlearned

From Tenerife in 1977 to the MAX 737 crashes in 2018 and 2019, aviation history is littered with moments where human lives were sacrificed at the altar of systemic oversight. In each case, the initial narrative often pointed to pilot error—only to be later unraveled by deeper investigations revealing flawed automation, regulatory blind spots, or corporate negligence.

• Tenerife (1977): The deadliest aviation accident in history, caused by miscommunication and fog, led to sweeping changes in cockpit resource management.

• Air France 447 (2009): A stall at cruising altitude exposed the dangers of overreliance on automation and inadequate pilot training.

• Lion Air & Ethiopian Airlines (2018–2019): The Boeing 737 MAX disasters revealed how software flaws and regulatory capture can devastate trust in aviation safety.

Flight 171 now joins this grim lineage. Preliminary reports suggest possible electrical faults, perhaps linked to water intrusion—a known issue in Dreamliner systems. But the evidence remains incomplete. At this juncture, there is still lots of work to be done, and our lawyers are already heavily involved in the investigation. 

The Fight For Justice

As a lawyer who has spent decades representing families devastated by aviation disasters, Mike Andrews, our lead aviation attorney, has seen firsthand how grief is compounded by silence, delay, and denial. Today, Mike says he is honored to represent more than 125 families affected by the crash of Flight 171. These families are not just seeking compensation—they are demanding answers, accountability and change.

Mike has stood beside families impacted by some of the most devastating aviation disasters, including those affected by the Boeing 737 MAX 8’s flawed MCAS system. In each case, it took relentless legal pressure and public outcry to expose the truth. Flight 171 will be no different.

Mike has dedicated his career to complex product liability litigation, with a focus on aviation safety. As the author of Aviation Litigation & Accident Investigation and one of the Top 10 Aviation Attorneys named by the National Trial Lawyers Association, Mike has worked to hold manufacturers, regulators, and airlines accountable when preventable failures lead to catastrophe. He and his litigation team at Beasley Allen are committed to ensuring that the victims of Flight 171 are not forgotten—and that their loss leads to meaningful reform.

Why Independent Investigations Matter

For consumers and travelers, the implications are profound. Consider the following:

• Transparency builds trust: Independent probes reduce bias and ensure that findings are not influenced by internal pressures or corporate interests.

• Systemic flaws can be addressed: If automation or maintenance issues contributed to the crash, identifying them could prevent future tragedies.

• Pilots deserve fair treatment: Blaming individuals without evidence undermines morale and distracts from deeper safety concerns.

A System in Need of Reform

The Supreme Court of India’s decision to demand a thorough investigation marks a pivotal moment. “Nobody can blame the pilot without a thorough investigation,” the Court declared—a stance that challenges decades of reflexive scapegoating. The pilot’s father, himself a retired Air India captain, has called for a judicial probe, saying that systemic failures—not human error—will likely be at fault, causing the crash.

This is not just a legal battle. It’s a fight for aviation transparency, where independent investigations are essential to:

• Expose systemic flaws in aircraft design and maintenance.

• Protect pilots from unjust blame.

• Restore public trust in air travel.

A History of Progress—And Complacency

Aviation has come a long way since the Wright brothers. Jet engines, fly-by-wire systems, and real-time diagnostics have made flying safer than ever. Yet, progress can breed complacency. The push for efficiency and profit often sidelines safety. Regulatory bodies, under pressure from manufacturers and airlines, sometimes fail to act until tragedy strikes.

Flight 171 is a wake-up call. It reminds us that safety must never be assumed—it must be earned, every day, through rigorous oversight and a culture of accountability.

As the investigation unfolds, the world watches. Will this be another case of buried truths and delayed justice? Or will it mark a turning point in how we treat aviation disasters—not as isolated events, but as symptoms of deeper systemic issues?

The families deserve answers. The public deserves reform. And aviation, as an industry, must confront its past to secure its future.

Advocating for Consumer Safety

At Beasley Allen, we believe that every passenger deserves peace of mind when they fly. When something goes wrong, our lawyers are available to ask the tough questions and push for honest answers. We support families, whistleblowers, and everyday travelers who want to know the truth. When a crash occurs, was it a system failure? Could it have been prevented? These aren’t just legal questions—they are safety questions that affect all of us. We will continue with our work and will keep our readers up to date. 

Ethiopian Air Case Settled Ahead Of Verdict

An Illinois federal jury awarded over $28 million to the estate of Shikha Garg, a United Nations scientist who died in the 2019 crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. Although the parties reached a settlement before closing arguments, the final recovery—after adding prejudgment interest—totaled nearly $35.85 million. Garg’s estate had sought damages for her suffering and the impact on her husband. Boeing had actually argued for a $12 million award, citing limited evidence of in-flight pain.

The jury’s verdict included compensation for emotional distress, economic damages, and loss of companionship. Boeing’s attorneys claimed passengers likely didn’t suffer physical pain due to seatbelt use and minimal gravitational forces. But lawyers for the estate strongly disputed that, saying that Boeing’s valuation trivialized the loss and mischaracterized the crash as turbulence. They emphasized the emotional toll on Garg’s husband and the unsafe conditions caused by Boeing’s design flaws.

This case was the first to reach a jury following the crash, which was linked to a faulty automated system in the Boeing 737 Max. Boeing accepted liability in 2021, allowing families to seek compensatory damages. The crash, along with the similar Lion Air disaster months earlier, led to a global grounding of the aircraft and intense scrutiny over Boeing’s safety practices.

The Garg estate is represented by Shanin Specter and Elizabeth Crawford of Kline & Specter PC and Joseph Power Jr. of Power Rogers LLP.

The consolidated case is In re: Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 Crash, case number 1:19-cv-02170, and Garg’s individual case is Garg v. Boeing Co., case number 1:19-cv-05079, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Aviation Litigation Team

When tragedy strikes in the skies, victims and their families need more than sympathy—they deserve justice. Leading the charge in aviation litigation is Beasley Allen lawyer Mike Andrews. Mike, author of Aviation Litigation & Accident Investigation, is one of the Top 10 Aviation Attorneys named by the National Trial Lawyers Association. Mike has represented families impacted by some of the most devastating aviation disasters, including the Boeing 737 Max 8 crashes. Currently, Mike and the Beasley Allen Aviation Litigation Team are advocating for justice on behalf of more than 125 families affected by the Air India Flight 171 crash. 

Aviation crashes often make headlines due to their devastating impact, but behind every incident is a story of preventable failure. Whether you are seeking answers after a catastrophic airline disaster or a loved one was injured in a helicopter or small plane crash, an experienced aviation accident lawyer can help navigate the legal complexities and fight for the compensation you deserve.

Mike Andrews, LaBarron Boone, and Dana Taunton, from our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, compose our Aviation Litigation Team. Other Beasley Allen lawyers in the Section assist the team with individual cases as needed. 

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

USA Cheer, Varsity Brands Face $200 Million Sexual Abuse Lawsuit In Georgia

In early October, the parents of a former metro Atlanta cheerleader filed a 27-count lawsuit in Gwinnett County, Georgia, seeking over $200 million in damages. The Jane Doe complaint names USA Cheer, the U.S. All-Star Federation (USASF), Varsity Brands, its former private equity owner Bain Capital, and several other entities and individuals as defendants. 

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleges that her former cheer coach, Charles Archibald Moore, drugged and raped her over a four-month period. The complaint also alleges that Moore filmed the abuse and that the broader cheerleading network, including USA Cheer, Varsity Brands, and USASF, enabled his actions through systemic negligence and concealment.

The suit also names two Atlanta-area cheer gyms and the Walton County School District (where Jane Doe attended high school). According to the complaint, the defendants created “an unending pipeline” of vulnerable athletes by encouraging families to place their children with host families connected to cheer gyms affiliated with Varsity Brands. The complaint alleges that the system was designed to isolate young athletes from their families and foster dependency on coaches and gym owners, creating an environment ripe for abuse.

A spokesperson for Varsity Brands responded by denying the plaintiffs’ claims in the Complaint. Defendant USA Cheer responded to the complaint by saying that the individual named has never been a member of USA Cheer. The case has drawn national attention and reignited scrutiny over the governance and safety protocols within competitive cheerleading. It also raises broader questions about the responsibilities of organizations that oversee youth sports and the mechanisms in place to protect athletes from abuse.

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

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

Our Employment Litigation Team has had tremendous success in both employment cases and qui tam cases. Currently, the team is pursuing some high-profile cases in courts around the country. We will write more on the FCA litigation in the Whistleblower Section.

Whistleblower Litigation

Supreme Court’s Refusal To Hear Whistleblower Appeal Could Weaken SEC Program

In October, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a certiorari petition filed by two SEC whistleblowers asking the high court to review the SEC’s calculation of their whistleblower award. The decision not to take up the appeal has highlighted a long-running concern that whistleblowers could be left out in the cold if the company they expose falls into bankruptcy before they get awards to which they would otherwise be entitled.

On Oct. 6, 2025, the high court declined to take up John Barr and John McPherson’s request to review the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s calculation of their whistleblower awards under the Dodd-Frank Act. The pair received a combined $26,000 for assisting the SEC’s investigation into Life Partners Holdings Inc. After a 2014 jury found Life Partners defrauded investors, the company was ordered to pay $38.7 million in disgorgement and civil penalties for defrauding life settlement investors. Life Partners’ CEO and general counsel, combined, were ordered to pay another $8.3 million. Life Partners filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four days after the judgment was entered. 

But Barr and McPherson contended they were entitled to much more. The SEC’s whistleblower program promises to pay between 10% and 30% of monetary sanctions collected in actions brought by the agency and related actions brought by other regulatory authorities. The SEC argued it was only able to obtain a small portion of the judgment against Life Partners because the company declared bankruptcy, and the Fifth Circuit agreed last year. 

While some don’t see the Fifth Circuit’s decision as having a broad impact on whistleblowers because of the unique circumstances of the case, others see the case as exemplifying a tactic corporations can use to prevent whistleblowers from receiving awards. Removing the award incentive, meant to outweigh the risk of retaliation whistleblowers face for reporting fraudulent conduct, could have a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers. Further, qualified attorneys will not want to spend several years pursuing major fraud cases when the prospect of a last-minute bankruptcy filing could eliminate any award payment. 

McPherson and Barr had contended that the SEC violated its own whistleblower rules under the Dodd-Frank Act by denying them a higher recovery than what they received, especially given that the agency led the way on appointing a bankruptcy trustee who eventually recovered $1 billion for investors. The SEC calculated Barr’s 5% and McPherson’s 20% award by excluding any funds collected through the bankruptcy proceeding. 

The SEC’s position that whistleblowers can’t collect awards from bankruptcies first arose in 2020. During that year, the SEC amended its whistleblower rules to replace the standard for whistleblower recoveries. Whistleblowers were previously entitled to a percentage of the amount the commission would be “able to recover,” but the amendments narrowed that standard to a percentage of the money the commission and other entities actually “collected.” 

Barr and McPherson contended in their petition to the Supreme Court that the SEC “could have collected on its judgment, but chose instead the expedient of routing the collection for investors to a bankruptcy trustee.” The SEC’s main goal is to get injured investors their money back. In Barr and McPherson’s case, the SEC subordinated a claim in bankruptcy to allow victims to recover funds first, reducing the pool of funds the agency could use to pay out whistleblower awards.

The case exposes a major flaw in the SEC’s whistleblower rules based on funds “collected” by the SEC, which will likely discourage reporting. While the rule change has been around since 2020, cases concerning the reduction of awards due to bankruptcy are getting more publicity. That attention could lead to more companies weighing voluntary bankruptcy when they are hit with large fines and penalties. For certain, more companies that violate securities laws will know that they can frustrate a whistleblower’s award by using the tactic. 

Refusing to base awards on funds recovered in bankruptcy is simply not fair and is not what the Dodd-Frank Act intended. Dodd-Frank defines the kinds of proceedings through which whistleblowers can receive awards, including through a “judicial action.” Clearly, as the whistleblowers argue, a bankruptcy proceeding is a “judicial action” and should be covered. While the Fifth Circuit noted Life Partners filed a “voluntary” Chapter 11 petition, it also noted that “Life Partners openly admitted that it filed for bankruptcy “to ‘avoid the appointment’” of a[n SEC] receiver.” Entering bankruptcy to avoid receivership seems far from voluntary. It appears targeted to avoid only one thing: remaining within a covered SEC action. 

As an example, consider any number of massive frauds, including Worldcom, Enron, Bernie Madoff, Lehmann Brothers, and FTX. All went into bankruptcy related to billions of dollars stolen from investors. It is absurd to think that the whistleblower program was not intended to reward individuals who ferret out the worst types of fraud targeting investors. After all, the Dodd-Frank Act was passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, including the Madoff and Lehmann Brothers frauds and bankruptcies. 

The result is the same with or without bankruptcy—due to a whistleblower’s work and cooperation, the SEC halts fraudulent conduct, and funds are returned to investors. Similarly, whether through bankruptcy or receivership, the ability of companies committing massive fraud is the same—there is seldom enough money left to pay all that was stolen. The only difference is whether the reward is greater for people to blow the whistle or keep quiet. Now that the courts have taken a position, it is up to Congress to change the relevant statute. But legislative and executive enforcement initiatives don’t currently seem to be high priorities. 

Again, this case was limited to one Circuit Court’s ruling, and our firm is committed to protecting the rights of whistleblowers at all levels as a measure to achieve justice for many. While this was an SEC case, the False Claims Act (FCA) remains the most effective tool in battling corruption involving public funds and continues to be a hugely successful program for recoveries. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 2024 alone, the FCA whistleblower program recovered over $2.9 billion for the United States Government. Cases handled by Beasley Allen lawyers were a part of that recovery. 

Whistleblower Shocked By Drug Sales Tactics

Jamie Siegel, a former doctor on Novo Nordisk’s clinical development team, has testified in a federal lawsuit accusing the pharmaceutical company of paying illegal kickbacks to boost sales of its hemophilia drug, NovoSeven. Dr. Siegel described being pressured to use her professional connections to promote off-label, prophylactic use of the drug—despite it not being FDA-approved for that purpose.

Dr. Siegel testified about a 2008 call from company employees asking her to encourage doctors to try NovoSeven preventatively and publish case reports. She had refused, saying it was unethical. Dr. Siegel also criticized the company’s marketing tactics, including distributing “trading cards” with personal details of prominent hemophilia doctors to sales staff, which she found “horrifying.”

Dr. Siegel testified that the company aimed to win over a small group of influential doctors treating rare hemophilia cases, encouraging them to speak positively about NovoSeven while downplaying risks like blood clots. She also noted that some doctors were prescribing high doses of the drug without evidence of improved outcomes. Dr. Siegel’s own proposal to study dose efficacy was rejected by Novo Nordisk’s headquarters.

The lawsuit, filed with the state of Washington, claims the company defrauded Medicaid of tens of millions of dollars between 2005 and 2015 by promoting unapproved uses of NovoSeven through payments and perks to doctors and patients.

Novo Nordisk denies wrongdoing, arguing that its support for the hemophilia community was legitimate and that state officials were not qualified to question doctors’ decisions.

During cross-examination, the company’s lawyer challenged Dr. Siegel’s credibility by pointing to her own off-label prescribing of NovoSeven and suggesting she had long planned the lawsuit. These claims were denied by Dr. Siegel, who maintained that her actions were medically justified. She had retained company documents to protect herself from potential retaliation.

Dr. Siegel is represented by Traci L. Buschner, Reuben A. Guttman, Nancy Gertner, Elizabeth H. Shofner and Rick Mountcastle of Guttman Buschner PLLC, Douglas C. McDermott of McDermott Asan PLLC and Michael Burrage and Patricia Sawyer of Whitten Burrage Law Firm.

The State of Washington is represented by Matthew T. Kuehn, Karl F. Sloan, Naomi Smith and Ferdinand LugoOrtiz of the Washington Attorney General’s Office’s Medicaid fraud control division.

The case is Jamie Siegel et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., case number 3:23-cv-05459, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Source: Law360

CVS Agrees To $18.2 Million FCA Settlement

CVS Pharmacy Inc. has agreed to pay $18.2 million to the federal government and the state of California to resolve claims that it improperly billed MediCal for prescriptions without verifying that patients met approved diagnoses. The U.S. Department of Justice said CVS violated both the federal and California False Claims Acts by submitting reimbursement requests for certain drugs without required documentation. In some cases, it’s said CVS dispensed medications for non-approved uses before billing the program. Officials stressed that pharmacies must ensure claims are accurate and compliant to protect patient safety as well as taxpayer funds.

The settlement stems from a 2019 whistleblower lawsuit filed by pharmacist Nicholas Zimniski, who alleged CVS routinely resubmitted “Code 1” drug claims with false certifications that patients met MediCal’s restrictions on age, sex, or diagnosis. Both the federal government and California partially intervened in the case. The whistleblower will receive about $3.3 million from the recovered proceeds. Under the agreement, CVS will pay $8.1 million to the federal government, including $4.7 million in restitution, and $10.1 million to California, including nearly $6 million in restitution.

The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by CVS. The company says it is “pleased to resolve” the matter. CVS argued that past MediCal Rx policies placed pharmacies in the unusual position of determining coverage eligibility, a responsibility now handled directly by MediCal. Regulators emphasized that the resolution reinforces oversight of federal and state healthcare programs and ensures compliance failures are addressed, safeguarding funds meant for low-income and disabled beneficiaries.

Zimniski is represented by Michael L. Armitage and Paul Lawrence of Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel.

The federal government is represented by Catherine J. Swann of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California.

California is represented by Emmanuel Ramon Salazar of the California Department of Justice.

The case is U.S. et al. ex rel. Zimniski v. CVS Health Corp., case number 2:19-cv-01118, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Source: Law360

$100 Million Settlement Reached In Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield Contract Fraud Case

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey has agreed to pay $100 million to the state to settle allegations that it fraudulently obtained a multibillion-dollar contract to administer public employee health plans and then overcharged taxpayers. Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said the settlement is the largest non-Medicaid False Claims Act recovery in New Jersey’s history. 

Prosecutors alleged Horizon concealed its inability to meet a key cost-saving requirement known as the “lesser of” provision, submitted more than 1,000 false claims, and issued inaccurate explanation of benefits forms while collecting nearly $500 million in administrative fees.

The state’s complaint claimed Horizon knowingly bid on the 2020 contract despite internal analyses showing it could not comply with the “lesser of” rule, which required billing the lower of either the provider’s charge or the negotiated reimbursement rate. Investigators said the company billed above provider charges and disguised overpayments, while executives discussed issuing refunds later to cover noncompliance. Following a multiyear inquiry and a qui tam suit filed by relators, the state intervened and asserted claims of fraudulent inducement, false records, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Five relators will share $12 million of the recovery.

Under the settlement, Horizon must pay the $100 million within 25 days, stop issuing inaccurate benefit statements, and fully comply with the “lesser of” provision in its current contract awarded in December 2023. The agreement also imposes strict injunctive relief, including ongoing verification reporting through 2025. While Horizon admitted no wrongdoing and characterized the matter as a contract dispute, Platkin emphasized that the resolution protects taxpayers and public employees from inflated healthcare costs. Horizon continues to administer health benefits for more than 750,000 state employees, retirees, and their families.

The relators are represented by Jon Corey and David Schiefelbein of McKool Smith.

The state of New Jersey is represented by Assistant Attorney General Lara J. Fogel, Deputy Attorneys General Brian DeVito, Emma Y. Xiao and Catriona Coffey and Assistant Attorney General Beth Leigh Mitchell.

The case is Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey et al. v Horizon Healthcare Services Inc. dba Horizon Blue Cross, case number 2:21-cv-20188, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

Meta Agrees To $190 Million Settlement

Meta Platforms Inc. has agreed to a $190 million settlement in a shareholder privacy lawsuit stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which exposed the data of 87 million Facebook users. The deal, reached mid-trial in July and detailed in new Delaware court filings, also requires Meta to strengthen its governance practices.

Key reforms include:

• Expanding its whistleblower program with explicit privacy reporting language and quarterly board reporting.
• Adopting a new directors’ code of conduct covering conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and compliance.
• Revising its conflictofinterest policy to remove Mark Zuckerberg’s authority over director conflicts, shifting oversight to the chief legal officer, lead independent director, and board committee.
• Requiring the chief legal officer to approve directors’ trading plans.
• The case, filed in 2018, alleged repeated violations of privacy laws and insider trading tied to failures to comply with a 2012 FTC consent order. Plaintiffs argued Zuckerberg could have faced disgorgement of over $5 billion in shares, while other directors faced billions more in potential damages.

While Meta and its directors deny wrongdoing, plaintiffs say the settlement provides “substantial and immediate benefits” to shareholders. Meta stated the agreement reinforces its commitment to corporate governance.

Eleven current or former directors, including Zuckerberg, former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and four officers, some grouped as “insider trading” defendants, were facing trial when the settlement was reached.

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers with Gainey McKenna & Egleston, Berman Tabacco, Robbins LLP, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Andrews & Springer LLC, Prickett Jones & Elliott PA, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Dilworth Paxson LLP and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

The case is In re: Facebook Inc. Derivative Litigation, case number 2018-0307, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team  

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation around the country. Claims continue to be made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. The widespread Whistleblower litigation has been increasing nationwide at a rapid pace. However, there has recently been strong opposition to the litigation instigated and carried out by some powerful forces in Corporate America. Beasley Allen lawyers are watching this activity closely.

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud.  If you have questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower or you need help with a case, a Beasley Allen lawyer will be glad to make a free and confidential evaluation of your claim at 800-898-2034 or by email.   

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

Workplace Litigation

A Heroic Act, Lifelong Injury & Life-Changing Settlement

On October 13, 2021, Ronald W. Nichols Jr., a seasoned foreman from St. Clair County, Alabama, arrived at a job site in Jefferson County like he had done countless times before. Tasked with overseeing a crew and ensuring their safety, Ronald was known for his leadership, dedication, and remaining calm under pressure.

But that day, everything changed for Ronald Nichols.

While supervising the installation of industrial equipment, Ronald heard a scream. One of his crew members was trapped beneath a heavy gearbox. Without hesitation, Ronald rushed to help—lifting the massive object just enough for his colleague to escape.

The Aftermath: Pain, Loss, and a Fight for Justice

Ronald’s heroic act came at a devastating cost. The strain of lifting the gearbox caused severe injuries that left him unable to work or perform many of the daily activities he once took for granted. He has endured ongoing medical treatment, chronic pain, and emotional trauma. The physical toll has been matched by the financial burden of lost income and mounting medical bills.

For Ronald’s wife, Brenda, the impact has been just as profound. She has lost the companionship, support, and shared life they once enjoyed. Their journey now includes not only healing, but also seeking accountability.

Beasley Allen lawyer Kendall Dunson handled this case. He fought tirelessly for Ronald and Brenda, ultimately securing a $4.25 million settlement to help them rebuild their lives. Their strength and perseverance send a powerful message: workers deserve safe environments, and when that safety is compromised, justice must be served.

Why This Case Matters

This isn’t just a story about one man’s injury—it’s a wake-up call about workplace safety, responsibility, and the human cost of negligence. The worker was doing his job, protecting his team, and trusting that the environment around him was safe. That trust was broken.

Cases like Ronald’s highlight the importance of:

• Proper training and supervision on job sites;
• Safe equipment handling and maintenance;
• Clear communication and emergency protocols; and
• Legal protections for injured workers and their families.

Standing Up for Workers and Families

At Beasley Allen, we believe that no worker should suffer because of unsafe conditions or poor oversight. Ronald’s story is a powerful reminder of the risks workers face—and the strength it takes to stand up when things go wrong.

Our lawyers are honored to represent individuals like Ronald and Brenda Nichols, who are fighting not just for compensation, but for change in workplace safety. The courage of this couple helps shine a light on the need for safer workplaces and stronger protections for families across the Nation. 

Litigation Involving On-The-Job Injuries

Georgia is currently the home of many large-scale industrial projects. These projects include the construction of data centers, battery plants, and vehicle manufacturing plants. As corporations pour millions of dollars into getting these projects up and running, workers’ safety is quite often an afterthought. On November 4, 2020, an electrical subcontractor helping build SK Battery America Inc.’s lithium-ion battery production plant in Commerce, Georgia, fell through the ceiling to his death. That incident occurred just days before another employee fell through the ceiling in the same building. And at the newly constructed Hyundai Metaplant complex near Savannah, Georgia, there were three deaths during the construction of the plant. 

Under Georgia law, “[w]hen an employee is injured on the job, his recovery is normally limited to workers’ compensation benefits.” O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11; Bush v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 361 Ga. App. 475, 476 (2021). In Georgia, the workers’ compensation scheme is intended to quickly provide compensation for lost wages and medical bills, without requiring the employee to prove fault. 

This comes at the cost of relieving employers of tort liability. “Workers’ compensation has never been intended to make the employee whole – it excludes benefits for pain and suffering, for loss of consortium, and it provides a cap on wage benefits.” Doss v. Food Lion, Inc., 267 Ga. 312, 313 (1996). 

For that reason, it is important for lawyers who are handling a workers’ compensation claim or evaluating an on-the-job injury to look at other claims or for a third-party tortfeasor. 

Claims by employees for on-the-job injuries against third parties are not limited by the workers’ compensation statute. 

When a company hires a third party to work on a construction project, it owes the employees of that hired company a duty to maintain safe premises and to comply with other construction regulations. Suing a third party for an on-the-job injury provides an injured party with an opportunity to be fully compensated for their injury in a way that the workers’ compensation scheme does not account for. 

Kendall Dunson and Ben Keen have extensive experience with on-the-job injuries. They know first-hand the importance of identifying third-party tortfeasors and what to look for in finding them.

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

$66.5 Million Verdict Awarded After Nightclub Negligence

In an Order coming after a difficult trial filled with heartbreak and hope, the family of Mariam “Mari” Creighton finally heard the words they had long waited for: “justice served.” 

A Fulton County judge awarded a $66.5 million verdict to Mari’s parents, Tracey Eason and Juan Umberto Creighton. The verdict holds the Elleven45 Lounge in Atlanta, GA, and its operators accountable for the devastating events that led to the loss of their 21-year-old daughter, a vibrant student-athlete whose life was full of promise.

Represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Parker Miller and Key Lamberth, along with the law office of Mike T. Sterling & Associates, and Darren Summerville of The Summerville Firm, the family fought not just for compensation, but for change. Their case made it clear: this wasn’t just a tragic accident—it was a preventable failure.

A Fight for Accountability

Mari Creighton was more than just a college student. She was a loving daughter, a teammate, a friend, an excellent student, and a rising star at Albany State University. Known for her radiant smile and fierce determination on the volleyball court, Mari was the kind of person who lit up every room she entered.

But on May 12, 2024, that light was extinguished in a senseless act of violence. While enjoying a night out with friends at Elleven45 Lounge in Buckhead, Mari became an innocent victim in a shooting that left six people injured. She never made it home. She never knew this place had a long history of violence. 

The lawsuit, brought by Mari’s grieving parents, revealed a chilling pattern of negligence by the nightclub and its operators—Djibril Dafe, Sovereign Entertainment, Inc., Elleven 45 Inc., and Elleven 45 Lounge, LLC. Despite a history of violent incidents and repeated warnings, the Elleven45 Lounge was allowed to operate, and the rest is history. On that tragic night, a chaotic scene across the Lounge from Mari erupted when an individual who, after being allowed to enter the location with a gun, opened fire on the crowd.  Mari was struck by stray bullets and died from catastrophic injuries as a result. 

A Verdict That Speaks Volumes

On October 27, 2025, Judge Fred Eady of the Fulton County State Court heard heartbreaking testimony from witnesses. After carefully reviewing the evidence, Judge Eady awarded the following in damages for Mari’s untimely death:

• $5.625 million for Mari’s pain and suffering before her death
• $60.95 million for the wrongful death claim
• Total: $66.575 million in damages, to be paid by all defendants

 This verdict sends a powerful message that patron safety is not optional—it’s a responsibility. Now, the litigation will move forward into a new phase, as the verdict only resolved claims against some – but not all – of the defendants at the center of this tragedy.

Champions for Justice

At Beasley Allen, we are no stranger to fighting for victims in catastrophic premises cases. Parker Miller, in our Atlanta office, has led numerous high-profile cases where preventable violence and dangerous property conditions caused irreparable harm. His dedication, along with that of Key Lamberth, goes beyond the courtroom—they advocate for systemic change, safer communities, and the rights of families like those in this case, who deserve answers and accountability. 

Negligent Security And Vacation Rentals

As vacation rental services such as AirBNB and VRBO have risen in popularity, unfortunately, we have seen a new category of cases develop: negligent security on part of rental property owners and companies. Any individual or company providing housing is legally obligated to meet certain standards and requirements under something called premises liability. This concept mandates that property owners or management companies ensure adequate security while on their property by employing reasonable measures such as security cameras, proper lighting, and monitoring of persons on the property. 

While the law on this topic varies by state, the general concept is true that if a visitor is injured due to a negligent lack of security on part of the owner, then the owner is liable for the visiting customer’s injuries. Negligent security cases stemming from vacation rentals take various forms. 

For example, some property owners neglect to install proper lighting, despite knowledge that there is potential for crime in the area. Other property owners may neglect to install and maintain adequate locks and security systems at entrances on their property. 

Families Sue Camp Mystic Over Deadly Flooding That Killed 27

Eight families have filed suit against Camp Mystic in Texas Hill Country. This follows the July 4 flood that killed 27 people, including six young girls and two teenage counselors. The lawsuits, filed in Travis County, accuse the for-profit summer camp of ignoring decades of warnings about flood risks and failing to evacuate campers despite receiving alerts from the National Weather Service.

Among the victims were third-grade campers Margaret Bellows, Lila Bonner, Molly DeWitt, Lainey Landry, Blakely McCrory, and Eloise “Lulu” Peck, along with counselors Chloe Childress and Katherine Ferruzzo, both incoming freshmen at the University of Texas.

The families claim Camp Mystic knowingly placed cabins in a floodplain near the Guadalupe River, one of the most flash-flood-prone regions in the U.S. and failed to relocate them even during a multimillion-dollar expansion in the 2010s. Despite state requirements for evacuation plans, the camp allegedly instructed campers to remain in their cabins as floodwaters rose.

The lawsuits describe a pattern of disregard for safety, citing policies that kept children in harm’s way and a history of flooding dating back to 1932. Plaintiffs contend that the campers could have easily reached higher ground had evacuation protocols been followed.

Families say they were misled during the aftermath, with the camp initially reporting their daughters as “unaccounted for,” offering false hope. They also criticize the camp’s decision to reopen next summer and its use of a planned memorial as a promotional tool—without consulting the victims’ families.

The claims set out in the lawsuit include negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, and emotional distress. The families in the lawsuits aim to uncover the truth and prevent future tragedies.

This case will be watched closely. It will have a definite impact on liability in similar cases. 

Source: Law360

SECURITIES, ANTITRUST AND INVESTMENT LITIGATION

Leveling The Playing Field: The Plaintiff Lawyer’s Role In Antitrust Litigation

Antitrust law is not just about economics. It is about justice. Plaintiff lawyers are in the business of standing up to corporations on behalf of the average American – to keep those people from being steamrolled by corporate power. One of the most powerful tools that we plaintiff lawyers have is Antitrust litigation, which allows us to challenge monopolistic behaviors that harm consumers, small businesses, and even entire industries. 

Regardless of the size of the group affected, these cases are about more than market share – they are about fairness, opportunity, and accountability. While these cases are complicated, at Beasley Allen, we do not shy away from complex cases. That’s because we know that behind that antitrust violation, there is a story that needs telling and a client worth fighting for. 

Consumers and business owners do not have to be antitrust experts to recognize an antitrust case. Many cases start with one of these scenarios where a client is: 

• being shut out of the marketplace; 

• priced out of the marketplace; or, 

• forced to agree to unfair terms to remain in the marketplace. 

Most of the time, these cases live in a few realms: Employment law; healthcare law; and tech/intellectual property law. If you start to see patterns that are disadvantageous to you or your client, it may be time to look at the scenario from an antitrust angle. 

Again, these cases are typically quite complicated, time-consuming, and require substantial financial resources, but the rewards are clear. There is potential for significant recovery and systematic change that will level the marketplace playing field for the client and usually others in the same market. We just experienced this in the Blue Cross Blue Shield antitrust class, where combined recoveries for doctors, hospitals ($2.8 billion), and consumers ($2.67 billion) were over $5.47 billion. 

If you think your client may have an antitrust case, Beasley Allen’s Antitrust Litigation Team is looking for new antitrust theories to investigate and review. If you have a case that may fit into one of the categories discussed above and need help, let us know.

Landmark Settlement Reached With Visa & Mastercard

Visa and Mastercard have agreed to a sweeping settlement with a class of potentially over 12 million U.S. merchants, resolving more than two decades of antitrust litigation. The settlement agreement introduces major reforms to credit card acceptance rules and interchange fees, aiming to address concerns raised by U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie, who previously rejected an earlier version of the settlement as insufficient. The following are a part of this settlement agreement:

Fee Reductions: The agreement includes a 10-basis-point cut in average interchange fees and caps standard consumer credit card rates at 125 basis points for over eight years. A five-year freeze on current rates is also part of the deal.

Merchant Flexibility: Merchants will gain the ability to reject high-cost premium and commercial cards, and apply surcharges up to 3%—regardless of whether they also accept American Express or other competing cards.

Rule Reforms: The settlement targets restrictive practices like the “Honor-All-Cards” rule, which forced merchants to accept all cards from a network, and rules that limited surcharges or discounts based on card type.

The litigation dates back to 2005, with merchants challenging rules that allegedly forced them to accept higher-fee cards without alternatives. A separate class previously secured a $5 billion damages settlement, but this new agreement focuses on structural reforms.

Judge Brodie had criticized the prior settlement for offering limited relief and unequal treatment among merchants. The revised settlement, according to merchant representatives, could save businesses over $200 billion and addresses all of the court’s concerns.

Visa and Mastercard, in their filings, called the changes “historic” and warned that merchants are unlikely to achieve better terms through trial. They emphasized that the settlement offers equitable and substantial relief, while also preserving the networks’ ability to operate sustainably.

If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all pending U.S. merchant litigation targeting Visa and Mastercard’s interchange structures and acceptance rules. Final approval is expected in late 2026 or early 2027. Neither company admits wrongdoing, but both stress that the reforms will offer meaningful benefits to merchants nationwide.

The merchants are represented by Linda P. Nussbaum and Susan R. Schwaiger of Nussbaum Law Group PC, Steve D. Shadowen and Richard M. Brunell of Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Robert G. Eisler and Chad B. Holtzman of Grant & Eisenhofer PA, and Michael J. Freed, William H. London, Robert J. Wozniak and Michael E. Moskovitz of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

The case is In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:05-md-01720, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Source: Law360

Class Action Litigation

Bayer Settles $38 Million Investor Lawsuit Over Monsanto Acquisition

A California federal judge has approved a $38 million settlement between Bayer AG and a class of investors who accused the German pharmaceutical giant of misleading them about legal risks tied to its 2018 acquisition of Monsanto, the maker of Roundup weedkiller.

The lawsuit, filed in 2020 by pension funds that bought nearly 600,000 American depositary receipts (ADRs) of Bayer, claimed the company downplayed the impact of cancer-related lawsuits against Monsanto. Investors argued this misrepresentation inflated Bayer’s stock value and led to financial losses.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg gave final approval for the settlement. Bayer had failed to get the case dismissed. Bayer also lost its challenge to class certification. Judge Seeborg also approved $9.3 million in attorney fees and $3.2 million in litigation expenses for Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, the lead law firm.

Judge Seeborg noted the case was “hard fought” and praised the outcome for allowing investors to avoid a trial defense that ADRs might fall outside U.S. securities law jurisdiction. In 2023, he rejected Bayer’s extraterritoriality argument, affirming that U.S. laws applied.

Lead attorney Carol Gilden emphasized the ruling’s significance, saying it confirms that foreign companies can be held accountable under U.S. securities laws—even when shares are traded as ADRs on American exchanges.

Bayer denied any wrongdoing. The settlement covers all investors who acquired Bayer ADRs between May 23, 2016, and July 6, 2020.

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

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

Source: Law360

Home Depot Faces Self-Checkout Surveillance Lawsuit

An Illinois class of Home Depot customers has filed suit against the business, alleging its in-store computer surveillance systems at self-checkout kiosks “capture scans of their facial geometry without the disclosures and consent required under Illinois’ biometric privacy law.”

Yolanda Berry, lead plaintiff for the class, claims that Home Depot captured her facial geometry on multiple security cameras when using a self-checkout kiosk while visiting the store in February 2024. According to Ms. Berry, she never consented in writing to that capture, and Home Depot violated her right “to control the collection, use, and retention of her biometric data” under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The lawsuit also claims that Home Depot has admitted that its surveillance system heavily uses machine learning and has told investors that the system improves through a consistent capture of customer images. Therefore, the system is directly trained using customer biometric information.

Even though Home Depot acknowledged the security system in a May 2024 earnings call, the plaintiffs assert that it has not publicly announced the use of the systems to customers. Originally, as the complaint alleges, Home Depot developed the technology for the purpose of assisting store employees’ management of inventory. 

Practically speaking, Home Depot customers are under constant surveillance and having their biometric data collected without consent, “while Home Depot reaps the benefits of that data collection and simultaneously acknowledges to investors the risks of security failures,” the lawsuit alleges. The plaintiffs are seeking $1,000 per negligent BIPA violation and $5,000 per willful violation.

Firm Disqualified In Case Because Of “False Press Releases”

A California federal judge has disqualified Levi & Korsinsky LLP from serving as lead counsel in a proposed investor class action against Sable Offshore Corp., citing misleading press releases. U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson found that the firm falsely claimed in at least six press releases that it had filed the lawsuit, when in fact it had not. Despite the firm’s assertion that the errors were inadvertent and due to a clerical oversight following a staff departure, Judge Wilson rejected the explanation, calling the conduct dishonest and grounds for disqualification.

The judge appointed Rosen Law Firm PA to represent the investor class, following Rosen’s challenge to Levi & Korsinsky’s bid. Rosen argued that the misleading press releases violated California’s professional conduct rules and were intended to attract clients by falsely implying the firm had initiated the case. Court records confirm Rosen filed the suit in July.

The underlying case accuses Sable Offshore, two executives, and its underwriters of securities fraud, alleging they misled investors about restarting oil production at the Santa Ynez field before launching a $295 million secondary offering. 

The case is Tracy Johnson v. Sable Offshore Corp. et al., case number 2:25-cv-06869, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Parties Await Preemption Ruling In Depo-Provera MDL

The Depo-Provera litigation is a multidistrict litigation (MDL) formed in the Northern District of Florida in 2024 after studies showed an increased risk of Depo-Provera use to meningioma tumors, which are tumors that develop on the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord. Plaintiffs and Defendant Pfizer presented oral arguments on preemption issues in September, and the Parties await a ruling that will determine whether the litigation can move forward.

The preemption issue concerns whether the FDA’s decision to not require a label change to the Depo-Provera medication means that the claims are preempted as a matter of federal law. However, plaintiffs are hopeful that they will prevail on these issues based on the discovery produced in the cases. Should plaintiffs prevail, the MDL will quickly transition to the general causation phase. 

Although most often benign, meningiomas can create a myriad of neurological issues, such as seizures, strokes, and migraines. Many, if not most, meningiomas require lifelong monitoring, and some may not be operated on depending on where they are in the brain. Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith and Mary Cam Raybon are honored to advocate for women affected by Depo-Provera use who later suffered a cerebral or spinal meningioma. Roger and Mary Cam have filed five (5) cases in the MDL, with more to come. 

Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Hosts Acetaminophen Hearing

On November 17, 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments concerning an appeal filed by plaintiffs’ counsel in the Acetaminophen litigation. The hearing concerned a prior adverse expert ruling from the Southern District of New York, where the cases were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation (MDL) back in 2022. The MDL Judge dismissed the litigation by excluding all plaintiffs’ experts. 

Plaintiffs are hopeful that the Second Circuit will overturn the MDL Judge’s ruling and that the cases can move forward. As mentioned in our last publication, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently published information concerning a link between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism in children, but this litigation comes almost three (3) years before this announcement. 

Likewise, numerous studies have been published over the last decade showing an increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes from prenatal acetaminophen use. These studies were performed by the world’s top researchers in the field. The science behind these claims continues to grow, with researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai publishing an additional study in August concluding the same.

New Jersey Creates New Consolidated GLP1 Litigation

In July, more than 20 plaintiffs filed suits against Novo Nordisk in New Jersey state court and sought to consolidate their cases under the state’s multicounty litigation (MCL) system. They contended that centralizing proceedings would simplify complex issues spanning 13 states and multiple judges. The request focused on claims involving nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a form of blindness, plaintiffs allege was caused by Ozempic and Wegovy. These cases largely stem from a July 2024 study in JAMA Ophthalmology reporting a significantly higher rate of NAION among GLP-1 users. Subsequent research has reinforced this link. 

On November 12, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court approved the consolidation. It created two separate MCLs: one for gastrointestinal injuries and another for NAION-related vision loss. Both litigations were assigned to Bergen County under Superior Court Judge Gregg A. Padovano. Beasley Allen lawyers represent clients in the newly formed NAION MCL in New Jersey and will continue to play a key role in the litigation going forward.

Popular Eczema Medication Dupixent Linked To Increased Risk Of Cutaneous T Cell Lymphoma

A recent retrospective cohort study has identified a potential association between dupilumab therapy and an increased risk of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). Dupilumab, also known by the brand name Dupixent, is a monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-4 alpha receptor that is widely prescribed for moderate to severe AD.

However, emerging evidence suggests that its use may elevate the risk of CTCL, a rare form of skin lymphoma. Researchers compared malignancy rates between AD patients treated with dupilumab and those who were not. After controlling for confounding variables through propensity score matching, the study found that dupilumab users had over four times the odds of developing CTCL (OR 4.10; 95% CI: 2.06–8.19). This increased risk persisted even after excluding patients with prior use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Importantly, the elevated risk was specific to CTCL, with no significant increase observed for other cutaneous or lymphoid malignancies. Most CTCL cases were diagnosed more than one year after initiating dupilumab therapy.

Beasley Allen lawyers Ryan Duplechin and Cade Crow are actively investigating cases on behalf of individuals who took Dupixent for at least six (6) months or more and later suffered a diagnosis of CTCL. 

Hair Relaxer Litigation Update

The Hair Relaxer Products Liability MDL in the Northern District of Illinois continues to move forward under Judge Mary M. Rowland, with several key deadlines scheduled into late 2025 and 2026. Science Day remains set for January 8, 2025, and state court judges nationwide will be invited to observe, promoting coordination across jurisdictions.

Plaintiffs will disclose general causation experts by December 1, 2025, and defendants will disclose their general causation expert opinions by January 6, 2026. Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert opinions are due January 20, 2026, with expert discovery closing March 2, 2026. Fact discovery is scheduled to close on January 12, 2026. Bellwether work is underway, with 20 plaintiff bellwether depositions ongoing and anticipated to be completed by December 2026.

Judge Rowland has also already scheduled regular case management conferences throughout 2026, along with periodic court-call hearings, ensuring steady progress as the litigation advances.

Our litigation team, led by Aigner Kolom, remains committed to pursuing justice for individuals harmed by hair relaxers. We are still accepting cases for individuals diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, or ovarian cancer who used chemical hair relaxer products.

Kratom And 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) – Recent Action In Florida

As we have previously reported, Kratom is a plant material from Southeast Asia that produces opioid- and stimulant-like effects. Kratom can be consumed in many ways,

including pills, capsules, powders, crushed and smoked, brewed as tea, or by chewing

the raw leaves. 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) is a potent, opioid-like chemical found in

the Kratom plant, Mitragyna speciosa. At both the state and federal levels, public health

officials have issued warnings about concentrated 7-OH products, which are often marketed misleadingly as natural Kratom. 

In recent weeks, the Florida House and Senate have taken up proposals that would add 7-OH to the state’s list of Schedule I controlled substances. On the federal front, key health agencies are pushing to ban 7-OH entirely, calling it highly addictive and

unregulated. The FDA formally recommended classifying 7-OH as a controlled substance, placing it in the same category as opioids under federal law. The Drug Enforcement Administration will now review the recommendation and decide whether to schedule the chemical, which would ban its sale nationwide.

Additionally, the FDA is actively working to limit Kratom availability in the U.S. by

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

Our Firm is working diligently to combat the spread of this highly dangerous product, which is typically sold without any warnings or information concerning health risks, dosing instructions, serving sizes, the concentration of mitragynine and 7-OH in each serving, or the other active ingredients that manufacturers add to their Kratom products. 

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

Purdue Pharma’s $7.4 Billion Bankruptcy Plan Confirmed

A New York bankruptcy judge has agreed to confirm Purdue Pharma’s $7.4 billion Chapter 11 plan, which will distribute billions to victims of the opioid epidemic linked to the company’s OxyContin painkiller. Judge Sean H. Lane said he will issue a formal bench ruling to explain his decision.

The plan centers on a $6.5 billion settlement with the Sackler family, Purdue’s owners, who are contributing funds to trusts for claimants. Creditors who opt in to release their claims against the Sacklers will share in the full recovery pool, while those who refuse can still file suit but will have access to a smaller fund. This opt-in mechanism was designed to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling that barred nonconsensual third-party releases under the bankruptcy code.

Support for the plan is overwhelming, with 99% of voting creditors and all major claimant groups backing it. There were objections from a few pro se personal injury claimants. Lawyers for victims emphasized that the plan provides meaningful compensation and directs resources toward addiction abatement efforts nationwide, while avoiding the risks and delays of further litigation against the Sacklers.

Beyond financial contributions, the plan includes nonmonetary provisions:

• Dissolution of Purdue Pharma.

• Sale of the Sacklers’ international pharmaceutical businesses.

• Transfer of Purdue’s assets to Knoa Pharma, a new public benefit corporation tasked with producing opioid treatment and overdose reversal drugs under strict oversight.

• Creation of a Master Disbursement Trust and other trusts to manage distributions.

• Establishment of a public records repository containing millions of Purdue documents, including previously privileged communications.

Purdue, which filed for bankruptcy in 2019 amid liabilities estimated at $41 trillion, will contribute about $900 million in cash to the settlement trusts. Board Chair Steve Miller said the ruling marks “the end of a long chapter” as Purdue ceases to exist and Knoa Pharma emerges with a mission to combat the opioid crisis.

The official committee of unsecured creditors is represented by Arik Preis, Mitchell Hurley, Sara L. Brauner and Theodore James Salwen of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

The ad hoc group of individual victims is represented by Thomas E. Lauria, J. Christopher Shore and Michele J. Meises of White & Case LLP, Edward E. Neiger and Jennifer A. Christian of ASK LLP and Anne Andrews, Sean T. Higgins and Robert S. Siko of Andrews & Thornton.

The multistate governmental entities group is represented by Kevin C. Maclay, Todd E. Phillips, Serafina Concannon, Lucas H. Self and Ariel K. Hayes of Caplin & Drysdale.

The ad hoc committee of governmental and other contingent litigation claimants is represented by Kenneth H. Eckstein, Rachael Ringer, David E. Blabey Jr., Elan Daniels, Andrew Pollack and Ashish Virmani of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, David J. Molton and Gerard Cicero of Brown Rudnick LLP, Kami E. Quinn, Richard D. Shore, Emily P. Grim and Ethan H. Kaminsky Gilbert LLP and Melanie L. Cyganowski of Otterbourg PC.

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

Source: Law360

Dust Settles On The Paraquat MDL Settlement, Highlighting Long-Overdue Need For Stronger Protections

Parkinson’s disease is now one of the fastest-growing neurodegenerative disorders in the United States. Dr. Ray Dorsey, a board-certified neurologist and author of The Parkinson’s Plan, advances a striking argument: Parkinson’s may not be an inevitable part of aging, but a largely man-made disease driven by environmental toxins in our food, air, and water. As the Paraquat MDL settlement brings years of litigation closer to resolution, it also underscores the urgent need for stronger safeguards against these preventable harms.

The Growing Case Against Environmental Toxins

Dr. Dorsey highlights research showing that Parkinson’s is fundamentally preventable. At the center of this concern is paraquat—a highly toxic herbicide banned in many countries yet still widely used across the United States. Despite decades of scientific warnings, paraquat use has doubled in the last five years. Dr. Dorsey notes that rising Parkinson’s rates closely track increased exposure to agricultural and industrial chemicals. Identifying these environmental drivers, he argues, is key to reducing the disease’s growing burden.

A Public Health Imperative

From a policy perspective, the U.S. must reexamine its continued reliance on hazardous pesticides like paraquat. When dozens of nations have banned this chemical to protect public health, it raises a critical question: why has the U.S. not followed suit? Dr. Dorsey calls for greater EPA accountability, stronger oversight, and more transparency regarding paraquat’s use. He also emphasizes the importance of annual notifications for communities near application sites so residents can make informed decisions to protect themselves and their families.

The Fight for Justice

Legal accountability remains a crucial part of the conversation. Even now, questions persist about what manufacturers—particularly Syngenta—knew regarding paraquat’s dangers. For individuals living with Parkinson’s, however, the legal process is often daunting. As a progressive disease, Parkinson’s can limit a client’s ability to participate meaningfully in lengthy litigation.

With the EPA’s final decision on paraquat expected in 2026, public engagement is essential. Preventing Parkinson’s requires awareness, advocacy, and meaningful policy reform. By demanding stronger protections and placing public health above profit, we can move toward a safer, healthier future for all. 

Bayer Settles Major Roundup Cancer Case In Georgia

Bayer AG has reached a confidential settlement with John Barnes, a Georgia man who alleged that prolonged use of Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer caused his cancer. This settlement vacates the Cobb County jury’s earlier $2.1 billion verdict. That jury had awarded Barnes $65 million in compensatory damages and an unprecedented $2 billion in punitive damages. Reportedly, this was the largest single-plaintiff verdict in Georgia history. 

The settlement avoids a lengthy appeal process and comes amid Bayer’s ongoing struggle with tens of thousands of lawsuits tied to Roundup, which Monsanto developed and Bayer acquired in 2018. Barnes had argued that Monsanto engaged in a decades-long misinformation campaign, suppressing scientific findings since the 1980s that linked Roundup’s ingredients to cancer risks. 

In response to the massive verdict, Georgia lawmakers passed legislation shielding pesticide manufacturers from liability if they provide federally approved warnings, though the law excludes cases where the EPA finds companies knowingly concealed or misrepresented safety information. 

Bayer has faced similar high-profile verdicts across the country, including a $2.25 billion award in Pennsylvania in 2024 that was later reduced to $404 million, as well as multimillion-dollar judgments in Missouri and other states. The company has said it will settle cases when strategically advantageous, particularly those involving significant adverse verdicts, while continuing to defend Roundup’s safety. This Georgia settlement underscores both the scale of litigation Bayer faces and the broader legal and legislative battles surrounding pesticide liability in the United States.

Barnes is represented by Kyle Findley and Noah M. Wexler of Arnold & Itkin LLP, John R. Bevis of the Barnes Law Group LLC and Bradley W. Pratt, Frank T. Bayuk and Christopher D.M. Lambden of Bayuk Pratt LLC.

The case is Barnes v. Monsanto Co., case number 21-A-444, in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia.

Source: Law360

CONSUMER CORNER

Court Rejects $425 Million Capital One Settlement Agreement

A Virginia federal judge has rejected Capital One’s proposed $425 million settlement with customers who accused the bank of misleadingly advertising its 360 Savings accounts. U.S. District Judge David J. Novak ruled that the agreement, while procedurally fair, was substantively inadequate and failed to provide meaningful relief to the majority of affected customers.

Judge Novak criticized the settlement for potentially offering less than 10% of the damages claimed and for failing to address ongoing financial harm to the estimated 4 to 5 million class members who still hold 360 Savings accounts. The judge noted that these customers would continue earning significantly lower interest rates compared to Capital One’s 360 Performance Savings accounts, despite the bank’s promises of high returns.

The proposed settlement agreement included $300 million to compensate for lost interest and $125 million for current account holders. However, attorneys general from 18 states, including New York’s Letitia James, opposed the settlement, arguing it inflated its value while allowing Capital One to maintain lower interest payouts. Judge Novak agreed, stating that the forward-looking relief was insufficient and that the bank’s communications to customers resembled marketing pitches rather than clear conversion options.

Despite a few individual objections, the judge emphasized the weight of opposition from state attorneys general, who represent nearly half the U.S. population. He ordered the parties to renegotiate the settlement terms to better reflect the strength of the plaintiffs’ claims and the scale of alleged harm.

The customers are represented by Matthew B. Kaplan of The Kaplan Law Firm and Chet B. Waldman, Carl L. Stine, Philip M. Black, Matthew Insley-Pruitt and Timothy D. Brennan of Wolf Popper LLP.

The case is In re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, case number 1:24-md-03111, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Source: Law360

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. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients. Our lawyers have also brought 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 25 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, Social Media, Predatory Gaming, Video Game Addiction, Ultra-Processed Foods, Dupixent, Depo-Provera 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, Social Media, 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. Michelle Parks serves as the Director of Accounting, while Michelle Fulmer is the Director of Operations. Kimberly Youngblood holds the position of Executive Director, overseeing HR, IT, and Marketing. 

Since we reorganized the firm’s structure in 1998, Beasley Allen’s record speaks for itself. The revised structure – without any doubt – has contributed greatly to our firm’s success. Section Heads and Directors have been able to concentrate on the volume of cases in their section. They quickly recognize when additional resources are needed.  

Lawyers have been able to focus on cases within their sections. This has allowed them to achieve favorable results. There are major differences in each section, both as to the law, 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/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Litigation Sections.  

Practices

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

Cases 

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

• Acetaminophen 
• Auto Accidents 
• Auto Defect Class Actions
• Auto Products 
• Aviation Accidents 
• Camp Lejeune  
• Defective Tires 
• Depo-Provera 
• Dupixent
• Hair Relaxers 
• Kratom 
• NEC Baby Formula 
• Negligent Security  
• On-the-Job-Injuries 
• Ozempic 
• Paraquat 
• Predatory Gaming
• Premises Liability
• Social Media  
• Talcum Powder 
• Truck Accidents  
• Ultra-Processed Foods 
• Video Game Addiction 

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

• Acetaminophen
  Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Cases also include children treated with the drug during the first 18 months of life who developed autism or ADHD. 
• Auto Accidents
  Our lawyers handle life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence. Crashes may involve single vehicles, multiple vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, transit vehicles or trucks. 
• Auto Defect Class Actions
  Our team pursues auto manufacturers and their suppliers for vehicle defects that create safety risks for occupants and others on the road. We seek to correct defects not addressed by recalls or warranty extensions through class action litigation.
• Auto Products
  Our team will meticulously investigate your accident, examine vehicles for defects or product liability issues, identify responsible parties, file lawsuits, manage legal documents, and strive to maximize your compensation.
• Aviation Accidents
  Lawyers investigate aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error and other causes. Crashes injure hundreds, sometimes thousands, of victims onboard aircraft and on the ground every year.
• Camp Lejeune 
  Our firm handles cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Exposure to toxic water caused serious injuries, including cancer, adult leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, major cardiac birth defects and others.
• Defective Tires
  Defective tires can lead to automobile accidents resulting in injury or even death. Beasley Allen lawyers investigate these accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures. 
• Depo-Provera
  We are investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral or spinal meningiomas.
• Dupixent
  We are investigating the link between Dupixent and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL)— a group of rare blood cancers that affects the largest organ in your body — your skin.
• Hair Relaxers
  Our lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids or breast cancer.
• Kratom
  Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula
  Our firm investigates cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an intestinal disease that can lead to long-term complications and even death.
• Negligent Security 
  Establishment owners and managers are responsible for maintaining safe premises. When someone is injured or killed as a result of negligent security, Beasley Allen lawyers hold owners and managers accountable.
• On-the-Job-Injuries
  We investigate workers’ compensation cases, often finding that defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths. Quite often, the incident results in a product liability case. Industrial products include manufacturing, farming, construction or other types of equipment.
• Ozempic
  We investigate cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to the use of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat
  Our firm handles cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease that has been banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries. Paraquat remains legal in the U.S., risking the health and safety of workers on over 2 million U.S. farms.
• Predatory Gaming
  Online gaming has become one of the most popular forms of entertainment for children and teens. We are investigating claims involving child exploitation in gaming and predatory design that puts profits over children’s safety.
•  Premises Liability
  We investigate cases every day where negligence from property owners or occupiers has created dangerous conditions. Catastrophic premises cases involve serious injuries that occur on someone else’s property. These cases
• Social Media 
  Our youth are facing a mental health crisis caused by social media addiction. Beasley Allen advocates for these youth who have suffered harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide.
• Talcum Powder
  Beasley Allen handles cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder. For decades, companies like Johnson & Johnson knew that talcum powder might cause cancer but failed to warn consumers. 
• Truck Accidents 
  Our firm handles accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks. These cases often involve multiple, well-funded defendants and complex insurance issues.
• Ultra-Processed Foods
  We are actively investigating cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• Video Game Addiction 
  We are investigating cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors, using psychological tactics.

Resources to Help Your Practice

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

Jury Questionnaires

Kendall Duston gives some recommendations on jury selection for lawyers who do trial work. Kendall, who is in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, is an experienced trial lawyer. He has had tremendous success for his clients and has helped bring about some meaningful safety changes in Corporate America in the process.  He will discuss some necessary elements of jury selection.

As all good trial attorneys know, the ability to discover as much information as possible about potential jurors is extremely important in striking a jury.  Jury selection is paramount in seating a jury that is receptive to your client’s case.  Obviously, jury selection is not consistent between federal and state trials, and jury selection differs from state to state.  

Unfortunately, jury selection can differ from judge to judge in the same courthouse.  In my own personal experience, I have been limited by a federal judge in Missouri to thirty minutes of voir dire.  Conversely, some judges will allow as much time as either side desires to question potential jurors.  

In addition to time limitations, some judges impose scope limitations on attorneys during voir dire.  Because jury selection is so important, trial attorneys should consider the use of jury questionnaires to discover as much information about potential jurors as possible.     

Written jury questionnaires can be a very effective tool for jury selection.  The questions should be specifically tailored to the circumstances of the case.  In a recent trial, we partnered with defense counsel to propose the use of a jury questionnaire.  Because both parties favored the use of the jury questionnaire, the Court readily approved the request.  Additionally, we worked together with defense counsel to prepare each question.  

In this particular jurisdiction, the panel was selected weeks before the trial date, allowing the parties to submit the questions and receive the answers well before voir dire.  The use of the jury questionnaire eliminated many questions we would normally verbally ask and allowed both sides to focus specifically on follow-up questions, which saved the court time and allowed the jury selection process to move more efficiently.  

Some jurisdictions, however, do not disclose jurors or panels before the trial date.  In those circumstances, the jury questionnaire would be submitted to the panel on the first day.  While not as effective as receiving the responses before jury selection, there are still benefits to allowing potential jurors to answer questions in privacy.  Some questions may be embarrassing.  The jury questionnaire allows the person to respond to the Court and counsel instead of responding in a room full of strangers.  

Should you decide that a jury questionnaire is beneficial to your case, there are a few steps you should take.  Number one, confer with opposing counsel well before trial and ask the Court’s permission jointly.  Next, prepare the questionnaire and submit it to the Court for review.  If you are fortunate enough to obtain responses before jury selection, review the questions and fact check responses using social media and other public records resources.  Finally, use the answers to fashion follow-up questions tailored to the strike and case strategy. 

From personal experience, jury questionnaires can be a very effective tool in jury selection.  Admittedly, they are not proper for every case.  However, for complex matters or matters that involve issues that touch on sensitive subjects, a jury questionnaire can facilitate the strike process and allow you to seat not just an unbiased jury, but a favorable jury.  

These are good recommendations for lawyers who do trial work. Jury selection is critically important. Spending adequate time in the process of selecting jurors is an absolute necessity.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Chris Glover

Chris Glover, Managing Attorney of Beasley Allen’s Atlanta office, has spent his career championing justice for those harmed by catastrophic injuries and wrongful death. Joining the firm in 2008, Chris shares that he was driven to a career in law by a deep desire to stand up for individuals facing overwhelming odds. He adds, “I find purpose in leveling the playing field against powerful corporations, ensuring my clients’ voices are heard.”

For Chris, practicing law is more than litigation—it’s about making a lasting impact, he notes. He takes pride in cases that lead to industry-wide safety improvements, knowing his work helps prevent future tragedies. His commitment to justice extends beyond the courtroom, reflected in his leadership roles within professional associations and his active involvement in community service.

Outside of work, Chris treasures time with his wife, Erin, and their two children, Kaitlyn and Andrew. Whether serving as an elder and counselor at Christ Covenant Church or enjoying family time on the water, Chris values faith, family, and community as much as his professional achievements.

What Chris values most about Beasley Allen is its unwavering dedication to people. “Our firm’s mission isn’t just about winning cases—it’s about caring for clients and supporting each other as a team,” he says. That sense of purpose and collaboration continues to inspire Chris as he fights for those who need it most.

Chris is a tremendously talented trial lawyer. We are blessed to have him at Beasley Allen.

LaSonya Lucas

This month, we shine the spotlight on LaSonya Lucas, who has dedicated 20 years to Beasley Allen. As a paralegal in the Mass Torts Section, LaSonya plays a key role supporting the social media, JUUL, and Sodium Nitrate litigations. Her commitment and expertise have made a significant impact on the team and the clients they serve.

Outside of work, LaSonya’s life is centered around her family and community. She and her husband, Tyrone, have been married for 16 years and are proud parents to two sons, Lathan (14) and Teagan (12). The family is active at True Divine Baptist Church and spends much of their time supporting their children’s extracurricular activities. With both LaSonya and Tyrone coming from large families, they also enjoy traveling to visit relatives and spending quality time with friends.

When asked what she likes best about working at Beasley Allen, LaSonya shares, “It provides an atmosphere that supports both my professional and personal life and values.” Her appreciation for the firm’s supportive environment is a testament to the positive culture at Beasley Allen.  We are blessed to have LaSonya, such a talented and hard-working employee, with us. Her dedication to serving clients is unmatched. 

Norma Hernandez

This month, we are pleased to feature Norma Hernandez, who joined Beasley Allen in November 2023 and has quickly become an essential member of the Toxic Torts Section. As a paralegal in the firm, Norma supports the Camp Lejeune team by handling client calls, conducting pattern data reviews, and assisting with various tasks within her assigned client listing. Her dedication and keen attention to detail ensure that clients consistently receive the care and support they deserve.

Family is central to Norma’s life. She is married to Jorge and has two sons, Alex (25) and Chris (21). Norma is also a proud grandmother to two granddaughters, Gianna Lily (“Gia”), who will be two years old in December, and Isabella Iris (“Bella”), who turns one in January. In her free time, Norma says she enjoys going to the movies, brunching with family, and spontaneous outings with friends.

When asked what she values most about working at Beasley Allen, Norma shares, “The best part about my job is the team I get to work with—everyone is supportive and willing to help each other. Additionally, I value flexibility and a good work-life balance the most.”  We’re fortunate to have Norma on our team—her dedication and positive spirit make her a true asset to the firm.

Brent Warren

With 24 years at Beasley Allen, Brent Waren has been a cornerstone of the IT Department, currently serving as IT Specialist III. Brent’s dedication to advancing technology within the firm keeps Beasley Allen at the forefront of innovative legal technology. He thrives on supporting lawyers and staff and values the connections these interactions foster.

Outside of work, Brent enjoys a lively family life with his wife, Laurie, their four children, five grandsons, and a Springer Spaniel. Madelyn and Grady are in college, while Hannah and Madyson are RNs. Brent’s favorite pastimes include spending time with his family, trapping, hunting, and woodworking.

Brent reflects that he started at Beasley Allen in his twenties and considers his colleagues, especially those in the IT department, the highlight of his career. “Everyone I work with has been especially special to me,” Brent notes.  

Brent is a hard-working, dedicated employee. His role in the firm is very important. We are blessed to have Brent with us. 

Frank Woodson

Frank Woodson is the Managing Attorney for Beasley Allen’s Mobile, Alabama office. Since 2001, Frank has focused his practice on pharmaceutical product liability, guiding clients through complex cases and national litigations. Frank shares that his passion for the 7th Amendment and the right to a trial by jury was inspired by his grandfather and continues to drive his commitment to justice.

Frank finds deep fulfillment in advocating for individuals and families, helping them navigate the legal system and secure fair outcomes. He values the opportunity to make a meaningful difference in people’s lives, especially when facing powerful opponents. The most rewarding aspect of practicing law for Frank is standing up for clients’ rights and seeing justice served.

His professional excellence is widely recognized, with honors including membership in the International Society of Barristers and listings in The Best Lawyers in America, Mid-South Super Lawyers, and Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers. Frank’s leadership extends beyond the courtroom, with active involvement in bar associations and litigation groups.

When asked what he likes best about working at Beasley Allen, Frank shares, “The collaborative spirit and unwavering support among my colleagues make this firm a truly exceptional place to practice law and serve our clients.” 

Frank’s leadership role in Mobile is extremely important. He and his lawyers are doing a tremendous job in the Port City. We are blessed to have Frank with us. 

Special Recognitions

Paul Evans Is Appointed To The PowerSchool MDL PSC

Paul Evans, a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, has been appointed to the PowerSchool MDL Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC). This prestigious role underscores Paul’s dedication to advancing justice in complex litigation. 

Paul has built a distinguished career representing clients in high-stakes cases, with a focus on consumer protection, product liability, and multidistrict litigation. His appointment to the PowerSchool MDL PSC reflects both his experience and his commitment to ensuring that plaintiffs’ voices are strongly represented in this important matter.

The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee plays a critical role in coordinating strategy, streamlining proceedings, and advocating on behalf of those impacted. Paul’s experience and skill will be invaluable in guiding the litigation process and working toward fair outcomes. 

Paul will help lead litigation strategy in this significant data privacy case affecting schools and families nationwide. The case centers on allegations that PowerSchool failed to protect sensitive student, parent, and staff data, exposing personal information and violating contractual obligations during a major security breach.

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

Record-Breaking Results In Auto & Trucking Cases

Beasley Allen works with other firms quite often in motor vehicle cases involving defective products. We have developed experience through actual experience in this field of litigation. Do you have a case involving auto products liability (such as seat belt failure, vehicle rollover, tire blowout) or a truck accident that resulted in serious injury or wrongful death? If so, we would be honored to work with you.

Our firm has a long history of success in complex litigation involving auto and truck accidents. We have had record-breaking settlements and verdicts across the country. Our lawyers and staff have helped clients recover hundreds of millions of dollars in accident cases where traditional insurance coverage was limited, and we continue to pursue cases involving defective vehicles, unsafe modifications, and trucking-related crashes.

Recently, our firm secured the largest personal injury settlement in Alabama history: $110 million. We also obtained a $162 million settlement involving a van rollover crash in Georgia, which is said to be the largest single-automobile accident settlement in the state. Additionally, our lawyers have secured numerous multi-million-dollar settlements in other states. There have also been a large number of confidential settlements by Beasley Allen lawyers where the clients’ interests had to be considered above the need for public disclosure of the amount of the settlement. We always try to include all relevant information relating to the settlement, including the amount of the settlement. But our clients’ interests always come first. 

Beasley Allen actively partners with lawyers nationwide, and we welcome the opportunity to collaborate with other law firms. We offer generous co-counsel fees.

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Brent Warren, one of our staff employees being featured this month, shares his favorite Bible verse with us. He says it serves as a reminder of inner strength through faith.

I can do all things because Christ gives me the strength. Philippians 4:13

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

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

Having just celebrated Thanksgiving, we must be thankful for all of our blessings. That’s extremely important with all of the negative happenings in the world. Each of us can be an example for others by showing our gratitude for God’s blessings through how we live our lives.

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

This is an advertisement.