The Jere Beasley Report January 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Heightened Concerns For Top Executives

The tragic assassination of Brian Thompson, CEO of United Health Group’s insurance arm, in New York City has heightened concerns about the safety of top executives. As all Americans now know, Thompson, 50, was shot outside the Hilton Hotel on 6th Avenue before a scheduled appearance at UHC’s annual investor conference. This was clearly a targeted attack.  The assassin has been apprehended and charged with murder. The legal proceedings are already underway and are receiving huge media and social media coverage. 

Reportedly, Thompson had received threats in the past, possibly related to insurance coverage issues. This incident, along with recent threats against high-profile figures on the national scene, has prompted companies to reconsider security measures for their executives. Clearly, this is a national problem that must be addressed and dealt with. 

Workplace violence is a growing concern, with 524 workplace homicides in the U.S. in 2022. CEOs and senior executives are increasingly targeted, with many already traveling with bodyguards. Companies are advised to evaluate their security protocols, especially for controversial or public-facing executives, and ensure compliance with safety regulations. Boards should consider whether their current security measures are adequate or need upgrading.

To my surprise, the reaction to the Thompson killing by the public has been mixed. I was shocked to learn that a good number of people are openly supporting the killer. There were also reactions from a majority of people who took the opposite view. But how there could even be a question on the issue of right or wrong in a killing like this one is a mystery to me. 

I believe this senseless killing is a product of the cloud of distrust and even hate that hangs over our country. This is a problem that can no longer be ignored. Lax gun laws also contribute greatly to the problem. Our elected leaders must take the lead and bring about badly needed changes necessary to make all of America safe again!

TALC LITIGATION

The Battle For Justice: Alice Salas vs. Johnson & Johnson

We will tell the story of one of our clients in the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) Talc Litigation. It will help make everybody understand the consequences of J&J’s wrongdoing. 

Beasley Allen representsAlice Salas, a 72-year-old woman from Texas, who has faced unimaginable challenges since her two cancer diagnoses. Ms. Salas says what she misses most about her life before cancer is her hair—once full, waist-length, and lustrous. Now, her hair is thin, short, and graying, and she relies on makeup to draw on eyebrows and cover her scalp. The chemotherapy treatments have also left her toenails so hard that she needs professional pedicures to trim them.

Ms. Salas attributes her ovarian cancer to Johnson & Johnson’s talcum-based baby powder, a claim made by thousands of others. These individuals allege that the product, likely contaminated with asbestos, caused their cancers. However, their pursuit of justice has been thwarted by Johnson & Johnson’s use of a controversial legal strategy known as the “Texas two-step.”

The Texas Two-Step: A Legal Loophole

The Texas two-step allows companies to split into two entities: one holding the liabilities and the other retaining the assets. The liability-holding entity then files for bankruptcy, effectively putting claims on hold and minimizing payouts. This tactic, originally intended for Texas oil and gas companies to manage unproductive assets, has been adapted by large corporations to handle liability claims.

Johnson & Johnson’s first attempt to use this strategy was dismissed by a New Jersey appeals court in March 2023. During this period, 600 claimants died from cancer complications. Undeterred, the company filed a second bankruptcy attempt in April 2023, which was also dismissed. The liability entity was then rebranded as Red River Talc and filed for Chapter 11 in Houston in September.

The Human Cost

For Ms. Salas, the impact of her cancer diagnoses and treatments has been profound. She had to quit her job, move back to her family home, and face significant financial distress, even filing for bankruptcy herself. Unlike Johnson & Johnson, she had no assets to fall back on. She says: 

They don’t care what we have to go through because of their product. All they care about is making money, whether it hurts anyone or not.

Ms. Salas’s story highlights the human cost of corporate maneuvers designed to avoid liability. Critics argue that the Texas two-step perverts justice, allowing wealthy companies to sidestep compensating victims while dragging out legal processes. Johnson & Johnson, along with other companies, has used this strategy to manage asbestos-related claims, often leaving victims uncompensated.

A Call for Justice

At the heart of this legal battle, Ms. Salas has a poignant message for the executives at Johnson & Johnson: 

Look at my hair. Look at my face. Listen to how sick my body has been for the last 16 years because of the chemo, because of a product that caused this disease, this cancer. Don’t you care how I feel? Don’t you care about helping me and others like me? Why are you trying to avoid it? Why are you trying to abuse the system instead of trying to help the people who have used your products?

Ms. Salas’s story underscores the need for corporate accountability and justice for those affected by corporate wrongdoing. As the legal battles continue, the hope remains that the voices of victims like Ms. Salas will be heard and that they will receive the compensation and recognition they deserve. Our job is to make sure justice is done in this litigation. 

Leigh O’Dell is the lead Beasley Allen lawyer representing Ms. Salas. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Melissa Prickett, Director of our Mass Torts Section. She will have one of the lawyers handling the talc litigation respond. 

Source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram

J&J Attempts To Overturn Verdict

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is attempting to overturn a $15 million verdict awarded to Evan Plotkin, a real estate developer and cancer patient. Plotkin accused the company of prioritizing profits over people. He requested an additional $30 million in punitive damages.

In opposing J&J’s stance, Plotkin highlights that the company knew about asbestos in its talc products but continued to sell them, potentially causing cancer. He contends that J&J’s actions were reckless and warrant punitive damages.

J&J has filed motions to set aside the verdict, seek a new trial, or reduce the damages. They argue that Plotkin’s experts failed to prove the asbestos exposure level and that the jury was improperly influenced.

J&J also contends that they were not allowed to present critical evidence and cross-examine Plotkin’s son about discarded notes. They claim the $15 million award is excessive compared to similar cases.

Plotkin’s lawsuit includes claims of strict liability, negligence, and failure to warn. J&J denies liability and plans to appeal, arguing that independent evaluations have shown their talc is safe and does not cause cancer.

Plotkin is represented by Benjamin D. Braly, Ethan A. Horn and Dana Casselli Simon of Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP, and by Brian P. Kenney of Early Lucarelli Sweeney & Meisenkothen LLC.

The case is Evan Plotkin et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number FBT-CV-21-6109520-S, in the Bridgeport Judicial District of the Connecticut Superior Court.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

The battle with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is still in progress. Beasley Allen remains totally committed to battling J&J on every front. Currently, the ongoing third bankruptcy attempt is the focus. We will continue to fight the good fight in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I am confident this litigation will eventually wind up in a manner with justice being done for J&J’s victims. 

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, they have been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has also been actively involved with the team in all aspects of this litigation. Andy has become J&J’s target, and they have tried very hard to intimidate him. That has not worked. 

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

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

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune Justice Act: New Measures To Speed Up Claims Settlement 

The Department of the Navy (DON) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have announced that they are rolling out new measures in an effort to accelerate the settlement process for claims under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA). With over 550,000 claims filed, the Camp Lejeune Claims Unit (CLCU) has identified key hurdles delaying settlements and has announced it is implementing strategies to address these issues, streamline the claims process, and expedite offers.

Simplifying Documentation for Claimants

One of the main changes involves simplifying the documentation requirements for claimants. Previously, obtaining service records was necessary to verify a claimant’s presence at Camp Lejeune. Going forward, individuals can submit records they may have on hand to prove they lived at the base for at least 30 days during the statutory period without the need for obtaining service records. This may eliminate some delays associated with acquiring official records and allows the CLCU to move forward with settlement offers based on the 30-day minimum presence requirement. Claimants who provide additional documents showing a longer duration of stay can still enhance their settlement offers.

Addressing the Claim Validation Backlog

Another significant challenge the CLCU has faced is a backlog in claim validation. Out of the 550,000 claims filed, nearly 480,000 are still awaiting final validation by law firms. To clear this bottleneck, the DON has announced that starting on January 13, 2025, all claims will be advanced for review and processing, regardless of validation status. Law firms now have until this date to review and correct any claim data. After January 13th, claims requiring updates will need to go through a formal amendment process, which can reset the six-month review period.

Resolving Duplicate Claims

A further issue contributing to delays is the presence of duplicate claims. Over 100,000 claims have been filed multiple times by different law firms on behalf of the same claimants. To tackle this problem, the CLCU announced that it will prioritize the first-in-time claims from each group of duplicates. The department will also continue to require retainer agreements from attorneys as proof of their authorization to settle claims on behalf of their clients.  This may present problems for firms whose clients filed their own claim or elected to retain them after filing with another firm.  All parties may need to cooperate to effectuate a substitution of counsel. 

Camp Lejeune Litigation Team

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

The lawyers on the Camp Lejeune Litigation Team include Ryan Kral, Matt Griffith, Jeff Price, Elliot Bienenfeld, David Diab, Gavin King, Tucker Osborne, Elizabeth Weyerman, Saima Khan, Travis Chin, Wesley Merillat, and Miland Simpler.

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

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

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Update On Social Media Litigation

Beasley Allen lawyers are pursuing claims against the following social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube) for injuries resulting from addiction to those social media platforms. Our lawyers have filed lawsuits on behalf of hundreds of injured individuals, adults and minors, arising out of their addiction to these social media platforms. In addition, Beasley Allen is representing a number of school districts for expenses those school districts have incurred due to problems related to their students’ social media addictions. These lawsuits have been filed in two different courts in California – the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California and the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. 

Recently, both courts have selected a group of cases to begin discovery to prepare the cases for trials beginning in 2025. The federal district court selected 12 personal injury cases and 12 school board cases. Of those cases, Beasley Allen represents 3 of the personal injury cases and co-represents 4 of the school board cases. 

The Los Angeles Superior Court randomly selected 24 personal injury cases. Beasley Allen represents 9 of the personal injury cases that remain in the bellwether pool for this court. 

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

The federal district court for the Northern District of California reached a different result on school board claims pending in that court. In particular, the Northern District of California rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss negligence and public nuisance claims arising out of the laws of 19 different states. As to the negligence claims, the court rejected the motion to dismiss as to the laws of all 19 states. As to the public nuisance claims, the court rejected the motion to dismiss as to all states except Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Counsel for the school districts are continuing to work on discovery and soon will begin depositions to prepare the cases for trial.

On December 6, 2024, a panel of the California Court of Appeals rejected a petition by the social media defendants challenging the state court Judge’s denial of a motion to dismiss on negligence and fraud claims asserted by the personal injury plaintiffs. The appellate court rejected defendants’ attempt to cut off the claims asserted in 1,900 cases from 44 different states.

Court Denies Social Media Giants’ Appeal In Youth Addiction Case

A panel of appellate judges in California denied the interlocutory appeal brought by social media companies that sought to avoid facing trials for youth social media addiction claims. In a December order, the Second Appellate District indicated that it had read and considered the parties’ briefs and denied the petition for review filed by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

In October 2023, the trial court in the Social Media Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) based in Los Angeles Superior Court, ruled that plaintiffs’ negligence and fraud claims against the social media companies could proceed. Judge Carolyn Kuhl’s ruling stated: 

Plaintiffs here allege that the effect of defendants’ algorithms and operational features on plaintiffs’ frequency and intensity of use of the social media site was not only foreseeable but was in fact intended. And plaintiffs allege that defendants were on notice through their own research and independent medical studies that this intended frequency and intensity of use of defendants’ platforms risked adverse health effects for the minor users.

Defendants sought appellate review of the decision of Judge Kuhl’s decision on the issues of whether social media addiction claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or by the First Amendment. In defendants’ appellate brief, they argued that “the stakes of this litigation are high, the legal issues are substantial” and they urged the appellate court to intervene before the case goes to trial.

The appellate court summarily denied defendants’ petition, putting plaintiffs one step closer to trials seeking to hold the tech giants liable for the mental physical harm suffered by youth as a result of social media addiction. Plaintiffs seek compensation for the alleged harmful health effects of their addiction to the social media platforms, including addiction, depression, anxiety, insomnia, eating disorders, self-harm, and suicide. The first trials are expected in late 2025.

The Social Media JCCP in Los Angeles is the largest personal injury litigation in the country against the tech giants, consisting of more than 1,900 cases filed by plaintiffs from 44 different states.

Plaintiffs in the JCCP are represented by Joseph VanZandt of Beasley Allen, Emily Jeffcott of Morgan & Morgan, Mariana McConnell of Kiesel Law, Rachel Lanier of Lanier Law Firm, and Brian Panish and Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea Ravipudi. 

Supreme Court Hears The TikTok Case 

The U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of hearing TikTok’s appeal against a government-imposed sale or shutdown. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is being challenged on First Amendment grounds. This follows TikTok and ByteDance’s request for an emergency injunction to prevent enforcement of the law, which mandates TikTok’s divestiture or shutdown in the U.S. by January 19.

A federal appeals court upheld the mid-January deadline for TikTok to be sold or face a ban in the U.S. The court rejected TikTok’s request to delay enforcement until the Supreme Court reviews the case. TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The law at issue mandates the sale of TikTok due to national security concerns. The U.S. government contends that ByteDance could be forced by Chinese authorities to share U.S. user data or manipulate content, claims which TikTok denies.

The law aims to address national security concerns over TikTok’s data collection and potential manipulation by the Chinese government. The appeals court agreed with the government’s position that it was protecting U.S. citizens from foreign adversaries.

Supporters of the law argue TikTok poses a national security risk due to potential Chinese government influence, while opponents claim there’s no evidence for such fears and view the law as unconstitutional censorship. The Supreme Court expedited the appeal, with oral arguments set for January 10. 

The cases are docketed TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656, and Firebaugh v. Garland, No. 24-657.

Source: National Law Journal

Lawmakers Urge TikTok To Meet January Deadline

Two lawmakers have urged TikTok to meet the January 19 deadline to sell its U.S. operations or face a ban. They also pressed Apple and Google to be ready to remove TikTok from their app stores if it doesn’t comply.

In their letter, the bipartisan leaders of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party referenced a recent D.C. Circuit ruling that supports TikTok’s potential blacklisting and encouraged a sale.

Reps. John Moolenaar and Raja Krishnamoorthi emphasized that TikTok has had 233 days to arrange a sale since the law was signed on April 24. They reminded Apple and Google of their legal obligations to not distribute foreign adversary-controlled apps without an approved sale.

Efforts to ban TikTok date back to the Trump administration due to security concerns over its data practices and links to the Chinese government. Recent court rulings have upheld the government’s position. The issue is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Stay tuned!

Source: Law360

AI Technology Encourages Child To Kill Parents

A lawsuit has been filed by two minors and their parents against Character.AI, its founders, and Google in Texas federal court. They claim the technology exposed the children to hypersexualized and violent content, with one chatbot even encouraging a child to kill his parents due to screen time restrictions.

The plaintiffs, identified only by their initials, are represented by the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project. They contend that Character.AI’s technology is harmful to children and was launched without proper safeguards, allowing minors to access it without parental knowledge.

The lawsuit alleges that Character.AI’s design prioritizes sensational and violent responses, leading to serious harms such as suicide, self-mutilation, and depression among children. One plaintiff, a 17-year-old boy with autism, became addicted to the technology and was exposed to harmful content, including a chatbot suggesting he kill his parents.

The suit includes claims of product liability, negligence, and violations of Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It also accuses Character.AI of practicing psychotherapy without a license and engaging in unauthorized legal practice.

Character.AI and Google have denied the allegations, emphasizing their commitment to user safety and responsible AI development.

The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew P. Bergman, Glenn Draper and Laura Marquez-Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center and Meetali Jain of the Tech Justice Law Project.

The case is A.F., on behalf of J.F., and A.R., on behalf of B.R. v. Character Technologies Inc. et al., case number 2:24-cv-01014, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

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

Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

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

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

MOTOR VEHICLE & TRUCKING LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Settles Difficult Trucking Case

Our Beasley Allen Atlanta Office recently settled a hotly contested trucking case.  In this case, a grieving family came to us because their daughter was found dead beneath a commercial truck sitting off an exit of a Georgia highway.  Though she had obvious tire marks on her body, Progressive (which represented the trucking company and truck drivers involved) rejected our settlement demand.  They did so because the autopsy workup revealed that our decedent was under the influence of several illegal substances at the time of her death.  

Progressive attempted to create a narrative in which the drivers of the truck had safely settled their truck on the side of the road for the evening. The next morning, they claim her body was found and that the death was through no fault of their own.  

Beasley Allen lawyers eviscerated this story through a three-pronged attack built by the evidence.  First, we used still shots from the truck’s cameras to show that the truck had moved to a different point on the roadway during the evening.  

Second, we developed incontrovertible evidence through the medical examiner’s testimony that our decedent’s substance use did not cause her death.  

The medical examiner also refused to offer testimony that the substance levels in her bloodstream impaired her cognition, thus mitigating contributory fault defenses the trucking company was counting on.  

Finally, we took a corporate representative deposition in which we were able to establish that the truck drivers did not perform walkaround inspections and that the trucking company had a complete lack of appropriate training and safety culture.  The representative fell apart under examination, offering shocking admissions that we would have used against him at trial.  Once this happened, Progressive tendered their full policy limits almost immediately. The settlement followed soon thereafter. 

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Evenflo Booster Seat Settlement 

Evenflo Co. Inc, a baby product manufacturer, has reached a preliminary agreement to settle a multidistrict lawsuit accusing the company of making deceptive safety claims about its Big Kid booster seats. The settlement was announced on December 6. 

In a joint filing, lawyers for Evenflo and the class informed a Massachusetts federal judge that they are finalizing the settlement terms and would submit the terms for preliminary court approval within 45 days.

The lawsuit alleges that Evenflo made misleading statements about the booster seat’s performance in side-impact collisions, particularly for children under 40 pounds. The class claims that Evenflo advertised the seats as safety tested for children weighing 30 to 110 pounds, despite the lack of federally approved safety tests for booster seats for children under 40 pounds or for side-impact collisions. Evenflo has maintained that its marketing claims were based on its own testing.

The class is represented by Mark Chalos and Christopher Coleman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Martha Geer of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Steve Berman and Shayne Stevenson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The case is In re: Evenflo Co. Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:20-md-02938, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

Exploding Pressure Cooker  Results In $56 Million Jury Verdict 

A Colorado federal jury determined that an “exploding” Sunbeam pressure cooker caused $55.5 million in damages to Georgina Perez, a Denver woman. The jury also found the plaintiff 10% responsible for the incident.

The jury held Sunbeam Products Inc. and its parent company, Newell Brands Inc., liable for Ms. Perez’s injuries from a June 3, 2019, explosion of her Express Crock Multi-Cooker, which resulted in second and third-degree burns. The jury awarded her $3.5 million for noneconomic damages, $2 million for physical impairment, $15 million in punitive damages against Sunbeam, and $35 million in punitive damages against Newell.

Sunbeam was found 27% responsible, Newell 63%, and Perez 10%. Ms. Perez’s lawyers stated she was following the manual’s instructions when the cooker exploded, causing severe burns and requiring extensive medical treatment. The cooker model SCCPPC600V1 was recalled in November 2020 due to a defect allowing it to pressurize without the lid fully locked, leading to numerous burn incidents.

Sunbeam and Newell were aware of the issue since 2017, but claimed there was no defect or lack of warning, arguing Ms. Perez misused the cooker. 

Ms. Perez is represented by Hannah Huston, Michael Burg, Holly Kammerer and Shane Fulton of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine PC.

The case is Perez v. Sunbeam, case number 1:21-cv-01915, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Source: Law360

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

AI And The Workplace: Potential For Discrimination 

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is on the rise in most professions, including in some businesses where AI is used to assist employers in making hiring decisions. This can lead to discriminatory practices that exclude parties based on factors disallowed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

While the use of AI to assist in hiring factors is likely appealing to business owners and hiring management, as it culls through applications, doing so opens those businesses up to lawsuits for potentially discriminatory outcomes. 

As part of a survey in 2024, the Society for Human Resources Management determined that 26% of organizations used AI to support human resource activities and that the top areas for AI use are related directly to recruitment, interviewing, and hiring; learning and development; and performance management. 

This can become problematic because AI systems use historical data to “learn” about the subject that the AI is meant to interpret. This is particularly concerning as the historical data likely contains biases that reflect societal inequalities. As an example, if a company generally does not have employees over the age of 40, candidates in an age group above 40 may be completely excluded from the candidate pool based solely on their age, which would be discrimination against a protected class. 

Additionally, since AI operates essentially as “black boxes,” the decision-making processes are not shared with potential employers, so the use of AI in these methods makes it difficult for the employer to have meaningful oversight of the program’s efforts. 

Because of the methods by which AI learns historical data and applies the data to hiring decisions, there is a lack of ability for true oversight. Thus, the great potential for discriminatory decisions can be put into action. That results in a likelihood of increased employment discrimination cases where AI is used. As we all know, AI is still being developed and is anticipated to be used more often and more broadly as technology advances. 

Our lawyers anticipate this area of law will change and develop further as the law catches up to AI technology. In the meantime, our Employment Litigation Team at Beasley Allen is monitoring the effects of AI on employment law and are ready to discuss these issues as they arise. 

Sources: Society for Human Resource Management, Yale Insights, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

A Review Of 2024 ERISA Case Developments

We are taking a look this month at recent significant decisions in Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) cases. There have been several significant happenings in this area of litigation.

6th Circuit Revives 401(k) Fee Battle

The Sixth Circuit reopened a 401(k) mismanagement suit against Parker-Hannifin Corp., potentially setting the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to address pleading standards for excessive fees and underperforming investments. The court ruled that workers provided a meaningful benchmark for judging underperformance, despite dissenting opinions suggesting a need for more detailed benchmarks.

The case is Michael Johnson et al. v. Parker-Hannifin Corp et al., case number 24-3014, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

6th Circuit Reconsiders Disability Benefits Claim

The Sixth Circuit also reopened a disability benefits dispute for a former HR director, Annette McEachin, allowing her to argue that her total disability benefits should extend beyond the two-year cap for mental health conditions. The decision could support claims where mental health conditions impact the ability to work, highlighting issues with mental impairment limitations in disability policies.

The case is Annette McEachin v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., case numbers 24-1071 and 24-1100, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Supreme Court Declines ESOP Arbitration Case

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Second Circuit decision blocking arbitration in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) dispute. This decision maintains the stance that forcing individual arbitration for plan wide ERISA claims is impractical, despite dissenting opinions advocating for arbitration.

These cases highlight ongoing legal debates around ERISA, including the standards for pleading investment mismanagement, the treatment of mental health in disability claims, and the arbitrability of ERISA disputes.

The case is Argent Trust Co. v. Cedeno et al., case number 24-392, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

6th Circuit Refuses to Send 401(k) Suit to Arbitration

The Sixth Circuit ruled that Tenneco Inc. could not force workers to arbitrate ERISA claims alleging 401(k) plan mismanagement, marking the fifth appellate court to reject such attempts. The court affirmed a Michigan federal court’s decision, stating that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as it blocked plan wide remedies under ERISA. This decision aligns with Supreme Court precedent, emphasizing the need to follow established law.

The case is Tanika Parker et al. v. Tenneco Inc. et al., case number 23-1857, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Source: Law360

Amazon Manipulates Data To Make Warehouses Seem Safer

A U.S. Senate committee investigation has accused Amazon of endangering workers by prioritizing speed over safety and manipulating injury data to make its warehouses appear safer. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, released the findings after an 18-month investigation. The report reviewed seven years of Amazon’s injury data and interviewed over 130 workers.

Key findings from the investigation, as shown by the Senate Report, include the following:

• Amazon warehouses have significantly higher injury rates than the industry average.

• Amazon workers are nearly twice as likely to be injured compared to other warehouse workers.

• In 2023, Amazon warehouses recorded over 30% more injuries than the industry average.

• The report concluded that Amazon’s fast-paced work environment puts workers at risk, making safety protocols difficult to follow. It also accused Amazon of discouraging injured workers from seeking outside medical care.

Amazon rejected the findings, claiming significant safety improvements and criticizing the investigation as biased. The company defended its methodology for comparing injury rates, which the report contended was misleading.

The HELP panel’s report is the latest in a series of accusations against Amazon for unsafe working conditions, highlighting cases of chronic pain and disabilities among workers.

Source: NPR

What’s Good For The Goose Is Good For The Gander

Oftentimes an employee of one company is injured on the property of a second company, while the employee is providing functions for one or both companies.  A question can arise as to what duty the worksite company owes to the employee of another employer. 

From this scenario, federal law has developed to address multi-employer arrangements. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established guidelines to apply under such circumstances.  In evaluating the duty of the respective parties as it relates to workplace safety, an evaluation should be done “to determine whether the employer is a creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer.”  If the company on whose property an accident occurs is found to fall into one of these categories, then the company can be held liable for injuries to the employee.

A “creating employer” is one who causes a hazardous condition that is in violation of an OSHA standard to exist.  If a creating employer does create the hazard, then that company can be held liable “even if the only employees exposed are those of other employers at the site.”  

An “exposing employer” is one whose own employees are exposed to a hazard.  The exposing employer can be liable for the hazard if it created the hazard and may be liable if the hazard was created by someone else under certain criteria.  The exposing employer has the duty to correct the hazard if it is able to do so.

A “correcting employer” is an employer who is engaged in a common undertaking on the same worksite as the exposing employer and who is responsible for otherwise correcting the hazard.  This situation arises most often when one party is charged with providing, installing and maintaining safety/health equipment or devices.  The correcting employer is required to take reasonable means to discover and take measures to prevent hazards.

Lastly, a “controlling employer” is one who has general supervisory authority over the worksite, which may include the authority to correct safety and health violations or the ability to require others to correct them.  Control can be established in a number of ways, including per the terms of a contract between the entities or by actual control exercised in any given situation.  A controlling employer has the duty to exercise reasonable care to detect hazards and put in place practices to prevent others from being injured by identifiable hazards.  

In fulfilling the duty a company has to the employees of another company, the company should do safety inspections and reviews, make efforts to eliminate hazards on its property, and provide the same or similar work safety environment for nonemployees as it provides to its own employees. 

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

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

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

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

Whistleblower Litigation

NHTSA Finalizes Whistleblower Program

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has finalized its whistleblower program, offering up to 30% of monetary sanctions to auto industry workers who report safety violations. The program encourages employees and contractors to provide original information on safety defects, noncompliance with safety standards, and violations of the Vehicle Safety Act.

If the information results in a sanction exceeding $1 million, the whistleblower can receive 10-30% of the fine. NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman emphasized the importance of whistleblowers in ensuring vehicle and road safety, stating that protecting them is a top priority for the agency.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers across the country in claims against multiple bad corporate actors. The widespread Whistleblower litigation continues to increase at a rapid pace. 

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

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

Insurance Litigation

Policyholders Request Final Approval On $147.5 Million Insurance Settlement

A group of insurance policyholders has requested a Connecticut federal judge to give final approval to a $147.5 million settlement. This settlement addresses claims that Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. and Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. overcharged policyholders by deducting excessive costs from savings accounts linked to universal life insurance plans.

The lawsuit, filed by Paulette T. Glover in May 2016, is related to cases in Pennsylvania and New York. Ms. Glover accused the insurers of breaching policy terms by overcharging for insurance costs. The settlement, which is the second largest of its kind, is considered a significant achievement for the policyholders.

The proposed settlement includes a $147.5 million fund, service awards for the lead plaintiffs, and attorney fees amounting to 25% of the fund. Initial approval was granted in September and a final fairness hearing was held on December 16.

There has been some controversy over attorney fees, with Susman Godfrey LLP opposing the fee bid and seeking a share of the award. That firm argues that their efforts in related cases could have resulted in higher damages. However, the settlement is seen as fair and beneficial, with an average return of $770 to each of the 191,000 class members.

The settlement administrator, Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions Inc., notified class members. Only a few opted out. A supplemental hearing is set for January 27 to address any additional objections. The goal is to finalize the settlement and distribute payments to policyholders promptly.

The settlement class is represented by William G. Madsen of Madsen Presley & Parenteau LLC, Norman E. Siegel, Lindsay Todd Perkins and Ethan M. Lange of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and John J. Schirger and Joseph M. Feierabend of Schirger Feierabend LLC.

The Pennsylvania and New York lead plaintiffs are represented by Steven G. Sklaver, Michael Adamson, Seth Ard, Ryan Kirkpatrick, Zach Savage and Nicholas C. Carullo of Susman Godfrey LLP and Craig A. Raabe of Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP.

The Connecticut case is Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al., case number 3:16-cv-00827, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The parallel cases are Vida Longevity Fund LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, case number 1:19-cv-06004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; TVPX ARS Inc. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, case number 2:18-cv-02989, and Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, case number 2:18-cv-01573, both in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

$452 Million Awarded To Insulet In Trade Secret Theft Trial

A Massachusetts federal jury has awarded Insulet Corp. $452 million after finding that EOFlow Co. Ltd., a South Korean company, stole its trade secrets for a wearable insulin patch pump. This verdict is one of the largest trade secrets awards of the decade.

The jury determined that EOFlow and its CEO misappropriated four of Insulet’s trade secrets, with three of these thefts being willful and malicious. Insulet received $170 million in compensatory damages and $282 million in punitive damages.

The history of Insulet is most interesting. It was founded by a father seeking better insulin delivery options for his son. He developed the OmniPod wearable insulin pump in the early 2000s. Insulet sued EOFlow in early 2023 after discovering that former employees had joined EOFlow and that Medtronic was considering acquiring EOFlow for $738 million.

The trial, having lasted four weeks, had 27 witnesses and over 300 exhibits.  The jury found all defendants, except one former Insulet employee, guilty of misappropriating trade secrets. The case will now move to an equitable phase for further relief, including a permanent injunction and challenges to EOFlow’s patent applications related to the misappropriated trade secrets.

Insulet is represented by Robert D. Carroll, Robert Frederickson III, Scott T. Bluni, Alexandra Lu, William E. Evans, Jenny Zhang, Matthew Ginther, Alexandra D. Valenti, James Breen, Timothy Keegan, Arshjit Raince and Danit Maor of Goodwin Procter LLP. 

The case is Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co. Ltd. et al., case number 1:23-cv-11780, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

Albertsons Cancels $25 Billion Sale To Kroger And Files Suit

Albertsons has canceled its $25 billion sale to Kroger. This came about after an Oregon federal judge issued a temporary injunction, indicating the sale would face significant delays and likely fail to meet antitrust regulations.

Albertsons has sued Kroger in Delaware, accusing the company of breaching the merger agreement by not making sufficient efforts to complete the sale. Albertsons is seeking billions in damages, including $400 million in expenses and a $600 million breakup fee.

The injunction was supported by the Federal Trade Commission’s argument that the merger would increase the cost of essential goods. A Washington state judge also blocked the deal, citing similar concerns. It should be noted that Kroger and Albertsons are the largest and second-largest supermarket chains in the U.S., respectively.

Law firms representing Kroger include Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stoel Rives and Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Law firms representing Albertsons include Angeli Law Group, Dechert and Williams & Connolly.

Source: National Law Journal

SECURITIES AND SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

Metropolitan Commercial Bank Aided Voyager Crypto Fraud, Suit Says

Voyager Digital’s former bank, Metropolitan Commercial Bank, has been sued. A 53-count complaint was filed in New York federal court alleging it was complicit in bad behavior by the now-defunct crypto lender and should be responsible for repaying platform users. Voyager Digital Holdings Inc. was a cryptocurrency company that offered interest-bearing crypto accounts and crypto trading.  

In June 2022, Voyager Digital announced that Three Arrows Capital, a cryptocurrency hedge fund based in Singapore, had not repaid loans totaling $666 million dollars.  Shortly thereafter, on July 5, 2022, Voyager Digital filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  

Voyager Digital’s bankruptcy plan administrator, pursuing claims on behalf of more than 30,000 former Voyager customers, alleged in the lawsuit that Metropolitan Commercial Bank (MCB) appointed Voyager as its representative to market and solicit crypto services to retail customers, despite Voyager falsely marketing its platform as safe, legal and insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. the complaint alleges:

Voyager was the agent. MCB was the principal as Voyager’s principal, MCB bore direct responsibility for Voyager’s misleading statements.

The bank continued to work with Voyager despite knowing the crypto lender was misleading its customers, the complaint alleged. Plan administrator Michael Wyse also alleged in the partially redacted complaint that Metropolitan knew about risky loans Voyager made to other companies that later filed for bankruptcy, including Alameda Research and Genesis Global Capital.

Wyse alleged Metropolitan’s arrangement with Voyager allowed the crypto company “to reap the benefits of its fraud,” and Voyager’s use of the bank’s good name and associated FDIC insurance in the crypto company’s marketing “lent false credibility to Voyager and helped lull retail customers into believing that they could use Voyager’s platform as safely as holding savings with a bank.” 

Metropolitan also schemed with Voyager to circumvent money transmission laws designed to protect customers from the harms they suffered when Voyager filed for bankruptcy in 2022, according to the complaint.

Wyse alleged Metropolitan aided and abetted Voyager’s misleading statements about partner risk and the safety of its platform, which at one point had more than 3.5 million customers and more than $5.6 billion in assets. Voyager owed its U.S. customers more than $1.7 billion, “a significant portion of which” still has not been returned, Wyse said.

The complaint seeks restitution and disgorgement, punitive and exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, costs and expenses. Metropolitan said in a statement:

Based on our understanding of the facts and the law, the plaintiff’s claims are meritless, and we will defend ourselves vigorously. The alleged false and deceptive statements and actions by Voyager are the sole responsibility of Voyager, its principals, and successors, and not of Metropolitan Commercial Bank.

The case is Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank, case number 1:24-cv-09108, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Crypto world is somewhat of an anomaly to most consumers. It’s not based on any traditional safeguards to ensure its value and it’s a darling of the criminal world, often used for human trafficking and cybercrimes.  Nonetheless, the temptation of profit from this unregulated currency seems to entice many investors to dabble in what most consider to be akin to the junk bonds scandal of prior years. Beasley Allen lawyers will continue to monitor the crypto issue. 

Initial Approval Given On $40 Million Settlement In Tax Suit 

A Pennsylvania federal judge has given initial approval to a $40 million settlement between Vanguard and investors who accused the firm of breaching its fiduciary duty, resulting in a sell-off that left investors with significant tax bills.

U.S. District Judge John F. Murphy found the settlement to be fair and certified the investors as a class for the settlement. A hearing to further consider the agreement will be held in Philadelphia in March.

The investors filed a class action in 2022, claiming Vanguard failed to protect smaller investors while attempting to lower fees. This led to forced asset sales, impacting taxable accounts. Despite facing challenges in litigation, the investors considered the $40 million settlement, about 15% of their claimed losses, a good outcome.

Vanguard agreed to settle after mediation in September. Judge Murphy had previously allowed the suit to proceed, finding the investors’ claims plausible. The case involved significant redemption requests from target-date funds, leading to capital gains distributions.

The proposed class includes all U.S. investors who held shares of Vanguard’s investor target retirement funds in taxable accounts and received capital gains distributions in 2021. Vanguard argued that some class members might not have been harmed and could be better off financially.

Judge Murphy set a February deadline for class members to submit proof of claim.

The investors are represented by Gregory Dovel, Julien Adams, Jonas B. Jacobson, Christin Cho and Simon Carlo Franzini of Dovel & Luner LLP, by Erica L. Stone and Jacob A. Goldberg of The Rosen Law Firm and by Kenneth J. Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert.

The case is In re: Vanguard Chester Funds Litigation, case number 2:22-cv-00955, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

Securities Litigation Team At Beasley Allen

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

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

Premises Liability Litigation

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed After Deadly Dollar Store Shooting

Beasley Allen’s Ben Keen, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of Sheila Brooks following the tragic death of her 20-year-old son, Lem Johnny Johnson IV, in a shooting at the Family Dollar on Riverdale Road.

On the evening of February 2, 2024, Johnson was dropped off at the Family Dollar by his mother. Moments later, gunfire erupted inside the store. Johnson was found on the store’s floor, having suffered multiple gunshot wounds.

The lawsuit alleges that Family Dollar had substantial notice of the foreseeable risk of third-party criminal acts on their premises but failed to take reasonable steps to guard against such dangers. As a direct result of their actions and/or inactions, the victim suffered catastrophic injuries and, ultimately, an untimely death.

Despite the foreseeability of the incident and their awareness of violent criminal activity occurring at the premises long before the incident, the Defendants chose not to take reasonable measures to protect the health, safety, and welfare of those frequenting their premises. Ben Keen had this to say:

We are committed to seeking justice for Lem’s family. Property owners have a legal and moral obligation to ensure the safety of their premises. This tragic incident could have been prevented with proper security measures. We will pursue this case vigorously to hold the responsible parties accountable and to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.

Proving Negligent Security In A Sexual Assault Of A Minor Case

Business and property owners have a critical duty to ensure the safety of all patrons coming onto their property, especially minors. Unfortunately, owners often fail to provide a safe environment for those who come onto their property, which can lead to injuries, attacks and even sexual assaults. In Georgia, negligent security law permits holding a property owner accountable for their failure to provide adequate security, which led to the sexual assault of a minor on their premises. 

Sexual assault of a minor can occur in various settings, including but not limited to schools, daycares, and recreational facilities. Common factors contributing to these incidents include:

• Inadequate Supervision of a Minor: lack of proper supervision can create opportunities for predators to target and be alone with minors;
• Poor Security Measures: insufficient lighting, lack of surveillance cameras, and unsecured access points can make property vulnerable; and
• Failure to Conduct Background Checks: Failure to properly vet employees or volunteers allows individuals with a history of sexual offenses to gain access to minors.

To prevent the sexual assault of minors on their premises, business and property owners should implement adequate security measures, including but not limited to enhanced security measures, conducting thorough background checks, training all staff, employees, and volunteers on recognizing and responding to signs of abuse and suspicious behavior, setting forth policies and procedures for the supervision and safety of minors. 

Business and property owners should regularly conduct security assessments to identify any potential risks and address them promptly. Moreover, business and property owners who permit minor children to come onto their premises should follow the federal or state guidelines, which set forth certain safety protocols that must be implemented to protect minors, including:

• Maintaining Safe Adult / Child Ratio;
• Background Checks;
• Conducting Assessments;
• Health and Safety Training for all Employees, Staff and Volunteers; and
• Recognizing and Reporting Child Abuse.

The bottom line is that property owners in Georgia have an absolute duty to protect the safety of children on their premises. By failing to implement any of the above-mentioned security measures, property owners can be held accountable for what occurred. Parker Miller and Key Lamberth, the lead negligent security lawyers at Beasley Allen, are experienced in handling these types of cases.

Hidden Dangers: The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine In Georgia

As a general rule of Georgia law, a property owner owes a trespasser only the duty not to affirmatively and intentionally cause harm to that trespasser. An example would be placing a spring-loaded gun to cause harm to someone should they try to steal a political sign. But a notable exception to that rule is the attractive nuisance doctrine.

The attractive nuisance doctrine protects child trespassers. Georgia law acknowledges that children have a reduced-to-nonexistent appreciation of property boundaries. It imposes on the property owners themselves the responsibility of taking certain steps to protect those children against injuries that they may sustain as a result of being drawn to a hazard of some particular intrigue on a property, such as a swimming pool, trampoline, abandoned vehicle, or construction site.

For an injured child to recover under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the following must be proved:

1. The property knew or should have known that children are likely to trespass;
2. The property condition poses an unreasonably risk of death or serious injury to children;
3. The children, due to their age, do not recognize the danger;
4. The burden of eliminating the danger is minimal compared to the risk; and
5. The property owner fails to take reasonable steps to eliminate the danger or protect the children.

If a property owner fails to protect from hazards that attract children and an injury or death occurs, Beasley Allen lawyers are ready to help.

$310 Million Verdict Awarded After Theme Park Death

The parents of Tyre Sampson, a 14-year-old boy from Missouri who tragically fell to his death from an Orlando amusement park ride in 2022, have been awarded a $310 million verdict against the ride’s Austrian manufacturer, Funtime.

An Orange County jury ordered Funtime to pay $155 million each to Tyre’s parents, Nekia Dodd and Yarnell Sampson. Tyre died on March 24, 2022, after falling 70 feet (21 meters) from the Orlando Free Fall ride at Icon Park. The trial was brief, and that was because Funtime did not appear in court to defend itself.

Icon Park, which leased the ride’s space to Orlando Slingshot, the ride’s owner and operator, had previously settled with the Sampson family for an undisclosed amount.

In a statement, the family’s lawyers, Ben Crump and Natalie Jackson, said:

The jury’s decision confirms what we have long argued: Tyre’s death was the result of blatant negligence and a failure to prioritize safety over profits. The ride’s manufacturers neglected their duty to protect passengers, and [Thursday’s] outcome ensures they face the consequences.

The family will now need to seek an order from an Austrian court to collect the damages. The company’s website shows it manufactures thrill rides that throw, drop, and spin passengers at high speeds and from tall elevations, including attractions named Vomatron, Sling Shot, and Chaos Pendle.

Tyre Sampson, a football standout, weighed 380 pounds. He was visiting Orlando on spring break from the St. Louis area when he went to the downtown amusement park with friends.

They rode the Orlando Free Fall, which seats 30 riders in chairs attached to a tower, secures them with shoulder harnesses, and then drops them 430 feet (131 meters). Unlike most drop rides, it did not have seat belts as an additional safety measure. Due to Tyre’s size, the harness did not lock properly, and he was ejected from his seat when the ride braked 70 feet from the ground.

Tyre’s parents contended that Orlando Slingshot and Funtime should have warned their son about the risks for someone his size and provided an appropriate restraint system. Seat belts would have cost $660.

 The incident led to the dismantling of the ride and the passing of the Tyre Sampson Act in Florida, mandating better safety inspections for amusement park rides. The state ordered the ride closed after the accident, and it never reopened. It is now being demolished.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael A. Haggard and Kimberly L. Wald of The Haggard Law Firm PA, Natalie Jackson of Ben Crump Law PLLC, and Michael E. Richardson of Hilliard Law.

The case is Nekia Dodd et al. v. Icon Park Liquor License LLC et al., case number 2022-CA-003570, in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.

Sources: Law360 and Associated Press

Class Action Litigation

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

On December 10, 2024, Judge Christine P. O’Hearn of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of a consolidated class action alleging that Denso manufactured defective low-pressure fuel pumps that were installed in certain Subaru vehicles built between 2017 and 2021. The settlement, which provides free repair and replacement of the fuel pumps and related relief to nearly 2.2 million owners of nearly 1.4 million Subaru vehicles, has an estimated value of over $380 million. 

The settlement is the second of four class actions pending against auto manufacturers whose vehicles were fitted with defective Denso-made fuel pumps. The first class action against Toyota and Denso, which covered a larger number of Toyota and Lexus vehicles built over a longer period of time (2013-2019), resulted in a settlement providing an estimated $287 million in economic relief to the settlement class. 

Plaintiffs have also settled the third class action, against Mazda and Denso, which has also been preliminarily approved by Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California on September 11, 2024. Plaintiffs continue to prosecute the fourth class action against Honda pending in the Northern District of Alabama. 

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

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

The first class action against Subaru and Denso was filed in the Northern District of Alabama in April 2020. Among other things, plaintiffs alleged Subaru’s recall was deficient because it did not include all affected Subaru vehicles equipped with the defective fuel pumps. Confirming plaintiffs’ allegations, Subaru issued a second recall in July 2021 adding another 165,026 Subarus, and twice amended its recall, bringing the total population of recalled vehicles to 359,683.

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

The settlement provides the very relief plaintiffs have been seeking since April 2020. In the settlement, Subaru will provide a 15-year warranty on the fuel pumps in more than 1 million Subaru vehicles that were not previously recalled but also contain the defective Denso fuel pumps. The settlement also provides for a 15-year or 150,000-mile warranty on the fuel pumps of the 360,000 Subaru vehicles that were recalled and had their fuel pumps replaced. 

Thus, the owners and lessees of all affected vehicles, whether or not their vehicles were previously recalled, or their fuel pumps replaced, are entitled to have their fuel pumps replaced at no cost. In addition, class members are entitled to free rental cars during the repairs and towing, if necessary. 

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

Beasley Allen filed the first lawsuit in this matter. W. Daniel “Dee” Miles serves as co-lead Counsel, in this litigation.  Dee had this to say: 

We are pleased that we now have final approval by the court of this important settlement and we’re able to provide these valuable class benefits directly to the settlement class members.

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

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

Uber’s $200 Million IPO Suit Settlement Is Approved

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, a California federal judge, has given final approval to Uber’s $200 million settlement with investors. Uber was accused of making false and misleading statements before its IPO. The judge also approved $58 million in attorney fees, calling the amount substantial, but warranted.

Judge Seeborg approved the settlement agreement after a hearing in San Francisco. Alfred Fatale, a lawyer for the investors, noted that there were significant litigation risks involved in the case. He also set out the extensive effort involved, with 51,000 hours having been devoted to the case.

It should be noted that the $200 million settlement is the second-largest IPO-related Securities Act class settlement that didn’t include fraud allegations. The maximum damages sought in the case were $1.3 billion, but the likely recovery was estimated at $424 million.

The settlement funds will be distributed based on each investor’s claim. Despite over a million claims received, it was stated that only 92,000 are potentially eligible for recovery. The attorney fees, amounting to 29% of the settlement, were justified by the extensive work and successful outcomes achieved by the legal team.

The lawsuit, filed in 2019, alleged that Uber’s misrepresentations led to a significant drop in its stock value post-IPO. The $200 million will be distributed to those who bought Uber shares within six months of the IPO.

The class is represented by Jonathan Gardner, Alfred Fatale, Joseph Cotilletta and Beth Khinchuk of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP.

The case is Boston Retirement System v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., case number 3:19-cv-06361, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

UnitedHealth To Pay $69 Million In Suit Over 401(k) Fund Roster

UnitedHealth Group has agreed to pay $69 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it included underperforming Wells Fargo investment options in its 401(k) plan to maintain a business relationship with the bank. The settlement, which is considered the largest in the history of investment performance cases under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), awaits preliminary court approval.

Lead plaintiff Kim Snyder claimed UnitedHealth’s decision to retain the poorly performing funds caused employees to lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars in potential savings. Despite denying any wrongdoing, UnitedHealth sees the settlement as a way to move forward.

The lawsuit, filed in April 2021, gained class action status in 2022, representing thousands of UnitedHealth employees. Earlier this year, the court found sufficient evidence to suggest UnitedHealth knowingly kept the underperforming funds due to its lucrative relationship with Wells Fargo.

Snyder and the class are represented by Charles Field, David Sanford, Kevin H. Sharp, Leigh Anne St. Charles, Brent Hannafan and Shannon Henris of Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight LLP and by Susan M. Coler of Halunen Law.

The case is Snyder v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al., case number 0:21-cv-01049, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

GLP1/Ozempic MDL Growing And Judge Set To Hear Motions To Dismiss

The GLP1/Ozempic MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is now up to over 1,300 filed cases.  This litigation involves personal injury cases linked to severe stomach and intestinal complications, as well as severe risks like intraoperative aspiration.

In November, the plaintiffs filed a 244-page master complaint detailing that Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly did not disclose the gastrointestinal and other health risks associated with GLP1s.  The master complaint alleges several claims including negligence, failure to warn, breach of both express and implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, unfair trade practices, strict product liability, negligent design, and wrongful death. The plaintiffs are pursuing compensatory and punitive damages, economic losses, medical monitoring, attorney fees, litigation costs, and other forms of relief.

The MDL judge recently issued a scheduling order to establish deadlines for motions to dismiss. This procedural step is typical in such cases, allowing defendants to seek dismissal of the claims based on the allegations in the complaint. The set schedule provides the plaintiffs with the necessary time to prepare their legal arguments to counter the companies’ motions.  

Panel Asked To Centralize Depo-Provera Birth Control Lawsuits

On November 26, lawyers representing individuals harmed by the birth control medication Depo-Provera asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate the lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  

An increase in Depo-Provera lawsuits came about after a recent study from the French National Health Data System found that prolonged use of Depo-Provera can lead to an increased risk of meningiomas, or benign tumors.  Meningiomas grow in the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord and symptoms can vary depending on the tumor’s size and location, but they often develop slowly.  Although benign, meningiomas can create a myriad of other neurological issues including seizures, strokes, and migraines.

Depo-Provera is manufactured by Pfizer and is a birth control injection administered by a healthcare professional every three (3) months.  The drug was FDA approved in October 1992 despite a checkered past of prior denials.  Pfizer has yet to update the Depo-Provera warning label to adequately inform patients despite knowledge of these serious risks.

Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith and Mary Cam Raybon are actively investigating cases where an injured person took Depo-Provera injections for at least 1 year and was later diagnosed with a cerebral or spinal meningioma.  

Kratom’s Increased Availability Despite Warnings

Despite the various warnings issued by the FDA and state-level regulators, Kratom is still readily available across the United States.  Kratom, sometimes referred to as “gas station heroin,” is an herb with opioid- and stimulant-like effects. A recent study published in The American Journal of Public Health found that nearly 1.9 million Americans used kratom in the past year. Further, the study reports that product availability is high in those states where bans are not in place – nearly three-fourths of tobacco and vape stores in the U.S. sell Kratom. 

It is not surprising that the increased availability and use of Kratom products has sparked emerging litigation surrounding Kratom products. The FDA has warned consumers about dangers associated with Kratom and has indicated they have “serious safety concerns with the use of kratom in dietary supplements and conventional foods.” Still, because Kratom manufacturers and sellers are marketing kratom as a safe dietary supplement, adverse events and deaths associated with kratom use have become more prevalent. Recently, various proposed class action lawsuits have been filed against Kratom manufacturers and sellers in the United States. 

Beasley Allen is currently litigating kratom cases, one of which is a wrongful death lawsuit involving Remarkable Herbs Kratom.  Our Kratom litigation team seeks to hold Kratom Defendants liable for their failure to provide labeling instructions for responsible use and for failing to disclose the safety concerns associated with Kratom. Beasley Allen lawyers continue to advocate for individuals who have suffered severe, life-threatening injuries from kratom. 

Hair Relaxer Litigation Progresses In Cook County Circuit Court

The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, is set to lead the charge in the hair relaxer litigation product liability cases. The over 150 cases filed in this Court are at the forefront of these proceedings. Judge Kathy M. Flanagan has ordered that multiple groups/cohorts, each consisting of five plaintiffs, each with similar injuries, be prepared for trial in 2025 or early 2026. Subsequent groupings of plaintiffs will follow the first trial every 60-75 days thereafter.

Judge Flanagan has emphasized the importance of avoiding unnecessary delays, positioning her court to potentially conduct the first hair relaxer case trials. This proactive scheduling approach indicates a commitment to timely justice for the plaintiffs involved.

While the Cook County state court proceedings may have the first trials, the majority of hair relaxer plaintiffs’ cases are filed in federal court under MDL No. 3060 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland on the Eastern Division is presiding over these cases, where discovery is currently ongoing. The first federal trials are anticipated to occur between 2026 and 2027. 

Additionally, other hair relaxer plaintiffs have filed their cases in various state courts around the country, such as Georgia, California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

This bifurcation of cases between various states and federal courts highlights the extensive reach and complexity of the hair relaxer litigation. The outcomes of these trials will likely have significant implications for hair relaxer plaintiffs around the country.

A Timeline Of The Zantac Litigation

The Zantac litigation has been ongoing for five years. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning that the heartburn drug Zantac and its generics contained a potentially cancer-causing chemical. This led to a wave of litigation in both federal and state courts. Let’s take a look at the timeline of the litigation below.

Federal Courts

September 2019

• The FDA warns that trace amounts of the cancer-causing chemical NDMA have been found in Zantac and similar generic drugs containing ranitidine.

February 2020

• The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidates suits against Sanofi, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GlaxoSmithKline before U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in the Southern District of Florida.

April 2020

• The FDA pulls all prescription and over-the-counter ranitidine drugs from the market.

July 2021

• Judge Rosenberg removes retailers and pharmacies from the MDL, ruling that claims of their negligence in the formation of the carcinogen were implausible.

December 2022

• Judge Rosenberg dismisses all claims against Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi, stating that no scientist outside the litigation has concluded that ranitidine causes cancer. Over 2,450 plaintiffs had filed or transferred suits to the Florida federal court by this time.

State Courts

August 2022

• A 79-year-old Illinois man voluntarily dismisses his suit in state court a week before trial, citing health reasons.

January 2023

• The New York Litigation Coordinating Panel consolidates over 40 suits against Boehringer, Sanofi-Aventis, Chattem, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer.

March 2023

• A California appeals court refuses to revive a nonprofit’s attempt to enforce Proposition 65 labeling requirements on generic antacid drugmakers and sellers, citing federal preemption.

August 2023

• Ten Connecticut residents sue Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Sanofi, accusing them of ignoring the dangers of ranitidine.

October 2023

• A settlement is reached in four breast cancer cases in California, chosen as bellwethers.

January 2024

• Delaware Superior Court Judge Vivian L. Medinilla hears arguments over the admissibility of expert reports and testimony in personal injury claims.

April 2024

• Sanofi announces an agreement in principle to settle about 4,000 personal injury claims related to Zantac, without conceding liability.

May 2, 2024

• The first trial in state and federal litigation begins in Chicago, with an 89-year-old Illinois woman claiming her colorectal cancer was caused by Zantac. The jury later finds the drugmakers not responsible.

July 18, 2024

• GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim face separate juries in Illinois state court over claims that Zantac caused cancer.

July 23, 2024

• A split Second Circuit panel allows nine consolidated suits to remain in Connecticut state court, ruling that consolidation does not open up federal jurisdiction.

July 29, 2024

• GlaxoSmithKline settles a lawsuit with an Illinois man who claimed Zantac caused his prostate cancer.

August 5, 2024

• A Chicago jury finds GlaxoSmithKline not liable for a woman’s colorectal cancer in a second trial victory for the company.

August 7, 2024

• An Illinois state judge declares a mistrial in a lawsuit claiming Boehringer Ingelheim’s Zantac caused prostate cancer.

September 18, 2024

• GlaxoSmithKline reaches settlements in California state court over cancer allegations, with the deal amounts undisclosed.

September 19, 2024

• Another mistrial is declared in a lawsuit over claims that Boehringer Ingelheim’s Zantac caused prostate cancer.

October 9, 2024

• GlaxoSmithKline agrees to pay up to $2.2 billion to settle roughly 80,000 state court cases and strikes a $70 million deal in a Connecticut laboratory’s whistleblower lawsuit.

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

PFAS/ AFFF Litigation Update

The Aqueous Film–Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation is pending before the U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel in the United States District Court of South Carolina. On October 15, 2024, the court issued Case Management Order (CMO) No. 31, implementing the form, procedure, and schedule for service of the Plaintiff Profile Form (PPF). We will give a further update on this litigation in this issue. 

Significantly, the PPF requires plaintiffs to identify at least one location of AFFF exposure through drinking water with approximate dates of exposure, be accompanied by medical records, and contain a signed and dated verification page from the plaintiff.

On December 3, 2024, a joint motion was filed for an amended personal injury Plaintiff Fact Sheet. The proposed order states that the submission of the personal injury Plaintiff Fact Sheet, as identified in CMO No. 5, does not satisfy the requirement to complete this discovery. 

Amended Plaintiff Fact Sheets replace the “superseded” personal injury Plaintiff Fact Sheet. The amended Plaintiff Fact Sheets will be submitted electronically via a portal vendor that has not yet been identified. Significantly, plaintiffs who timely serve an amended personal injury Plaintiff Fact Sheet are relieved of the obligation to submit a PPF per CMO No 31.

$850 Million PFAS Injunction Denied

A Georgia federal judge has denied a proposed injunction requiring 3M Company, Inc. and other companies to pay $850 million for cleaning up water sources in Dalton, a city in Whitfield County, contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The judge ruled that the plaintiff, Jarrod Johnson, lacks standing to demand such remediation.

U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg stated that while Johnson can seek monetary damages for increased water rates due to PFAS filters in Rome, a city in Floyd County, he hasn’t shown a specific injury that the remediation would address. Johnson hasn’t claimed adverse health effects from PFAS, property damage, or loss of recreational water use. His concerns are general community risks, not personal injuries.

Johnson sued 59 companies in 2019, alleging that industrial wastewater from Dalton contaminated Rome’s drinking water, leading to higher water bills. He argued that the land application system needs fixing to prevent PFAS from entering the Conasauga and Oostanaula Rivers, Rome’s main water sources.

Judge Totenberg agreed with the defendants that Johnson’s injuries are not unique and that the proposed remediation wouldn’t eliminate PFAS from all water sources. The judge emphasized that Johnson’s economic harm from increased rates could be addressed through monetary damages, which he has standing to pursue.

Judge Totenberg also noted that a settlement in parallel litigation has already reset the water rates, making the issue moot. Johnson can file another suit if future rate increases occur.

Jarrod Johnson is represented by Gary A. Davis and Keith Johnston of Davis Environmental Attorneys, Ryals D. Stone and William S. Stone of Stone Law Group Trial Lawyers LLC and Brett C. Thompson, Hirlye R. “Ryan” Lutz III, F. Jerome Tapley and R. Akira Watson of Cory Watson Attorneys.

The case is Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Co. et al., case number 4:20-cv-00008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Source: Law360

The World’s Largest Carpet And Flooring Manufacturer Sues PFAS Manufacturers

Mohawk Industries Inc., Mohawk Carpet LLC and Aladdin Manufacturing Corp., known collectively as Mohawk filed suit in November against PFAS manufacturers 3M Co., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., The Chemours Co., and Daikin America Inc. The case was filed in state court in Georgia.  

Mohawk has been a defendant in several lawsuits arising out of PFAS contamination caused by the use of Stainmaster and Scotchgard products in the carpet capital of the world, Dalton, Georgia.  Water utilities for several Alabama cities are facing the massive expense of removing PFAS.  Several other utilities, cities, and counties have filed suit over PFAS contamination including Gadsden, Alabama, Centre, Alabama, Shelby County Alabama, Talladega County, Alabama, Albertville, Alabama, and Pine Hill, Alabama.

Mohawk has not filed crossclaims against PFAS manufacturers in any of the cases in which they have been or are currently a defendant.  Now, Mohawk alleges in a twelve-count complaint that PFAS manufacturers fraudulently misrepresented the dangers of PFAS and failed to warn Mohawk and others on proper wastewater practices.  

Among other damages, Mohawk seeks indemnification for past and future settlements and/or judgments in lawsuits in which Mohawk is a defendant for PFAS contamination.

This lawsuit is one of many in the growing litigation against PFAS manufacturers for their role in contaminating an estimated half of American’s drinking water and the blood of nearly all humans on Earth.  For decades, PFAS manufacturers have hidden their internal studies that indicated the risk of PFAS contamination.

3M Argues Against Michigan’s Claim In PFAS Suit

3M Co. has argued to the Michigan Supreme Court that its challenge to the state’s PFAS regulations in tap water is not moot, despite the state’s claim that new regulations have superseded the old ones.

In a brief filed last month, 3M stated that the drinking water rule set cleanup standards for seven types of PFAS, which were not nullified by the subsequent groundwater rule. By law, any existing groundwater cleanup standard must match the drinking water standard once it is established. 3M contended that the groundwater rule did not set drinking water standards for any PFAS or groundwater standards for two of the seven types, making the two rules distinct and non-overlapping.

Conversely, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy argued that the groundwater rule supersedes the drinking water rule concerning 3M’s interests, as 3M is only concerned with groundwater contamination remediation. The state claimed that since the groundwater rule now governs PFAS standards in groundwater, the drinking water rule is irrelevant for groundwater cleanup.

3M initially challenged Michigan’s PFAS restrictions in tap water in 2021, winning lower court rulings that invalidated the regulations due to the state’s failure to consider business impacts during rulemaking. After 3M’s lawsuit, the state issued separate groundwater cleanup standards for the seven PFAS compounds in 2022. The state later confirmed that the drinking water rules no longer serve as groundwater cleanup standards.

In their latest briefs, 3M and the state also debated whether 3M had exhausted its administrative remedies. 3M argued that exhausting administrative remedies are only necessary when challenging a rule’s application, not its validity, and that there were no further remedies to pursue. The state countered that 3M should have requested a declaratory ruling from the agency before filing a lawsuit, which could have resolved the dispute without litigation. The state dismissed 3M’s claim that administrative remedies would be futile as speculative.

The state is represented by Richard S. Kuhl of the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

The case is 3M Co. v. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, case number 166189, in the Michigan Supreme Court.

Source: Law360 

Mediators Will Manage Bard Settlement Program To Resolve Claims

Mediators will manage a court-supervised program to settle Bard hernia mesh lawsuits not included in the recent global settlement. The U.S. District Judge overseeing these cases has appointed two Special Masters to lead an “Intensive Settlement Process” (ISP), offering financial compensation to those injured by defective surgical patches sold over the years.

C.R. Bard has faced over 21,000 lawsuits alleging injuries from defects in their polypropylene hernia mesh products, such as Bard Ventralight and Bard Ventralex. These cases have been centralized in federal court under U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus since 2018, with similar proceedings in Rhode Island state courts.

C.R. Bard faces over 21,000 claims alleging injuries from design defects in various hernia mesh products. After mixed results in early trials, a global settlement was announced in October 2024, which was designed to resolve most claims.

Claimants can choose to settle through the global program or opt for court-ordered mediation. U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus appointed Ellen K. Reisman and John Jackson as Special Masters to manage the ISP, which will run through mid-2029. They will hold mediation sessions and provide quarterly updates to the court.

Starting in January 2027, monthly conferences will address unresolved claims. Lawyers can select the Special Master for mediation, with costs shared between parties. The ISP will continue until all claims are resolved, preventing individual trial motions until then.

Source: About Lawsuits

Paraquat Litigation Update

Recent developments in the ongoing Paraquat litigation have revealed a slight uptick in new cases, with approximately 17 new lawsuits added to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of Illinois. This brings the total number of pending cases to 5,583, highlighting the growing scrutiny faced by manufacturers Syngenta and Chevron. As the first paraquat trial approaches in less than six months, the pressure for a global settlement is intensifying. While a settlement might provide a practical resolution for most affected parties, it raises questions about what key factors will move the needle closer to a resolution.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long been committed to banning toxic chemicals, including paraquat, and recent legislative momentum supports a national ban. Nearly 100 senators and representatives have advocated for this crucial action, signaling a significant shift in governmental stance towards harmful substances.

Another pivotal element in the paraquat saga is the potential impact of the new administration and its cabinet appointments on ongoing lawsuits linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease. Notably, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has emerged as a staunch opponent of toxic chemical exposure and a vigorous advocate for legislative change. Should he be confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), it could catalyze a renewed urgency among agencies to reassess the safety and efficacy of pesticides like paraquat.

While the future remains uncertain, interested parties are closely monitoring these developments, hoping for clarity and decisive action in the fight against toxic chemicals. The next steps in this litigation could shape the landscape of pesticide regulation and public health for years to come.

McKinsey Owes $650 Million For Work In Marketing OxyContin

McKinsey & Co. has agreed to pay $650 million to settle claims related to its role in helping Purdue Pharma market OxyContin. The settlement includes a five-year deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. government, resolving conspiracy and obstruction charges, as well as a False Claims Act investigation.

Let’s take a look at some of the key points in the settlement:

• Settlement Amount: $650 million, including forfeiture of over $93 million in fees from Purdue;
• Deferred Prosecution Agreement: Five years with the U.S. attorney’s offices in Virginia and Massachusetts, and the DOJ’s consumer protection unit;
• Charges: Conspiracy, obstruction, and False Claims Act violations;
• Former Partner’s Plea: Martin Elling, a former senior partner, will plead guilty to destroying documents, facing a recommended fine of $250,000 and six to 12 months in prison;
• McKinsey’s Apology: The firm expressed deep regret for its past work with Purdue and acknowledged the harm caused by opioids; and
• Compliance Measures: McKinsey will be barred from marketing controlled substances and must develop an enhanced compliance program under government oversight.

The case highlights McKinsey’s involvement in boosting OxyContin sales, including targeting high-volume prescribers and reassuring providers about the drug’s safety. McKinsey continued its relationship with Purdue even after the drugmaker faced multiple investigations and legal challenges.

The government is represented by Randy Ramseyer of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia, Kristen M. Echemendia, Amanda N. Liskamm, Anthony Nardozzi, Amy L. DeLine, Jessica C. Harvey and Steven R. Scott of the U.S. Department of Justice, Kimberly M. Bolton and Kristin L. Gray of the Virginia Office of the Attorney General, and Amanda Masselam Strachan and William B. Brady of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.

The cases are USA v. McKinsey & Company Inc., case number 1:24-cr-00046, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, and U.S. v. Elling, case number 1:24-cr-00045, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Source: Law360

CONSUMER CORNER

Jacksonville State University Claims ServPro Overcharged For Tornado Repairs

Beasley Allen is currently representing Jacksonville State University (JSU) in arbitration against BWW, Inc., dba ServPro of Birmingham (ServPro). Tyner Helms, a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, is the lead attorney on the case. 

On March 19, 2018, a major tornado struck JSU’s campus, damaging over fifty buildings. JSU then retained ServPro to perform mitigation and repair work on campus. After the project was well underway, Meaden & Moore, LLP conducted an audit of ServPro’s charges. The audit findings reveal that, based on the fraudulent billing, JSU overpaid by at least $15,000,000. 

JSU filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, on November 30, 2023, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Like the audit’s findings, JSU’s complaint alleged that ServPro massively overcharged it for the repair work, causing JSU to overpay by at least $15,000,000. ServPro did so by engaging in, among other forms of fraud, improper overtime charges, double billing, billing workers for over 24 hours in a day, charging JSU for unauthorized charges, performing unnecessary work, and billing day laborers at skilled labor rates. 

ServPro removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of Alabama. Currently, the lawsuit is stayed pending arbitration. Beasley Allen continues to fight for our client’s recovery. Discovery is ongoing in the arbitration, and expert witnesses were disclosed on December 13, 2024. The arbitration hearing is set for April 21 – May 2, 2025. 

Fraud continues to be a huge problem in many industries in this country. Our firm has increased its business litigation practice for this very reason, with lawyers Dee Miles, Lance Gould, and Tyner Helms working in the area of business litigation. Our goal, and in the consumer fraud area, is to fight corruption and compensate victims. We learned early on that businesses – like individuals – can also be victims of fraud. In other words, businesses can also be victims of other corporate misconduct.

Widespread & Fraudulent Practices In The Student Loan Market Reported

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has reported widespread misleading and fraudulent practices in the student loan market. This misconduct, particularly evident as 28 million people resumed loan repayments post-pandemic, includes deceptive billing, excessive withdrawals, and poor communication from servicers. The CFPB highlighted illegal actions by private lenders, federal loan servicers, and higher education institutions.

Stephanie Hall from the Center for American Progress expressed concern over a potential default crisis by 2025. The CFPB noted that lenders misled borrowers about refinancing, used illegal collection tactics, and failed to inform them about losing federal benefits when refinancing.

The Commission’s report did not name specific companies, but it shared findings with them for corrective action. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra emphasized that companies should not profit by violating the law. The report came amid discussions about the future of the CFPB, with some proposing its elimination. The CFPB has taken several enforcement actions, including a $120 million settlement with Navient. Ms. Hall warned that eliminating the CFPB would harm consumer protections in the student loan sector.

Source: National Law Journal

Litigating Artificial Intelligence On Behalf Of Consumers

Consumer awareness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) may be in its advent, but the ubiquity of AI is a powerful and enigmatic tool employed by industries like healthcare and housing for years. AI-enhanced Algorithms designed to analyze enormous amounts of complex data and identify patterns or other insights for a company at speeds incomparable to, and thus replacing human analysis are particularly prevalent. 

Likewise, the adoption of AI technology has outpaced the evolution of traditional guardrails to protect the consumer from harm, and in particular, the hesitancy to create and enforce antitrust laws on AI by federal regulators has created an environment for anticompetitive practices. 

However, antitrust litigation led by private plaintiffs alleging businesses using AI algorithms to set pricing are violating the Sherman Antitrust Act is on the rise. The key concern in AI algorithm antitrust lawsuits, unlike traditional antitrust lawsuits, lies in how the huge cache of competitively sensitive information is collected and shared between competitors. 

Studies distinguish between pricing algorithms that monitor other companies’ prices (price monitoring algorithms), those that recommend or automatically set a price based on other companies’ prices, and/or market conditions such as demand (dynamic pricing algorithms), and those that tailor prices to specific individuals based on their features (personalized pricing algorithms). 

What distinguishes AI antitrust from more traditional antitrust litigation is how businesses can take advantage of the usual protections afforded to competitive information coupled with the unfamiliar and deliberately concealed AI technology that intimidates greater scrutiny. However, consumers should not be intimidated by predatory pricing or accept harmful consumer conduct by big businesses. 

Understanding the patterns of AI algorithmic pricing is a step towards preventing big businesses from exploiting consumers and unfairly profiting on bad faith actions. 

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section at Beasley Allen ardently advocates for the rights of every consumer and is actively investigating claims against businesses for their alleged predatory AI pricing tactics. We welcome opportunities to investigate similar predatory practices and look forward to developing these claims on behalf of consumers.

Sources: Journal of Business Ethics, European Journal of Law and Economics 

Two Cancer-Causing Chemicals Banned By EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken a decisive step to ban two hazardous chemicals, perchloroethylene (perc) and trichloroethylene (TCE), which are extensively used in dry cleaning and various industrial processes. These chemicals are classified as carcinogens, which means they have the potential to cause cancer. They also pose other severe health risks, including neurological damage, liver toxicity, and respiratory issues.

The decision to ban these substances is part of a broader initiative to safeguard public health and the environment. Perc and TCE have been linked to a range of adverse health effects, such as skin irritation, headaches, dizziness, and long-term chronic illnesses. By eliminating these chemicals from use, the EPA aims to significantly reduce the exposure of workers and the general public to these dangerous substances.

This ban is expected to have a substantial impact on industries that rely on these chemicals, prompting them to seek safer and more sustainable alternatives. The action by the EPA reflects a growing recognition of the need to prioritize health and safety over industrial convenience. It also underscores the agency’s commitment to enforcing stricter regulations to ensure a cleaner and healthier environment for all.

In addition to the health benefits, the ban on perc and TCE is anticipated to have positive environmental effects. These chemicals can contaminate soil and groundwater, leading to long-term ecological damage. By removing them from industrial use, the EPA aims to prevent further environmental degradation and promote the use of greener, more eco-friendly alternatives.

The move has been welcomed by environmental and public health advocates, who have long campaigned for stricter controls on toxic chemicals. However, it also presents challenges for businesses that must now adapt to new regulations and find alternative solutions. The EPA has indicated that it will work with industry stakeholders to facilitate a smooth transition and support the development of safer substitutes.

Overall, the ban on perc and TCE represents a significant step forward in the effort to protect human health and the environment from the harmful effects of toxic chemicals. It highlights the importance of regulatory action in addressing public health concerns and promoting sustainable industrial practices.

Source: The Washington Post

FDA Warning Issued Relating To Unauthorized E-Cigarettes

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued warning letters to 115 retailers nationwide for selling unauthorized e-cigarettes that appeal to youths. These letters primarily address Chinese-made products under the Geek Bar and Elf Bar brands, which are not among the 34 e-cigarette products authorized by the FDA.

The FDA collaborates with states, territories, and third-party entities to inspect retail establishments. These inspections revealed the sale of unauthorized products, resulting in warning letters. Retailers have 15 working days to respond, and failure to comply could lead to regulatory or legal action. The targeted products are mostly fruit, candy, mint, and other flavored e-cigarettes.

The 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey indicated that 5.8% of youth e-cigarette users reported using Geek Bar products, which the FDA has identified as appealing to youths.

These warning letters are part of an ongoing effort to crack down on unauthorized e-cigarettes, following legislation signed by President Joe Biden that extended the FDA’s jurisdiction over nicotine products to include e-cigarettes. In recent months, the FDA has also warned and fined retailers for selling illegal vape brands and products designed to look like smart technology, which the agency views as attempts to target children.

Source: Law360

A Look At Video Game Addiction

Children and adolescents are growing up in an era when a significant amount of time is spent playing video games.  It is estimated that children ages 8-17 spend 1/5 to 2 hours playing video games daily.  

A team of Beasley Allen lawyers, led by Roger Smith, is committed to combating this hazard. These lawyers represent individuals suing Activision Blizzard, Inc., Ubisoft Entertainment, and other subsidiaries for their creation and distribution of video games that lead to addiction, poor performance in school and other cognitive development issues. 

This gaming addiction can cause or contribute to additional diseases and issues. There have recently been dozens of cases filed around the country.

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients

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

Over the past 45 years, Beasley Allen lawyers have handled all sorts of civil litigation for plaintiffs. The Administrative Section supports the four litigation sections that could be described as “mini-firms” within Beasley Allen. Those four litigation sections are the Mass Torts Section, the Toxic Torts Section, the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. 

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

The Mass Torts Section

Andy Birchfield heads our Mass Torts Section. Melissa Prickett serves as the Section’s Director. With over 50 years of combined legal experience, Andy and Melissa lead the firm’s largest section in medical devices, medication and other practice areas. The section currently handles cases involving Acetaminophen, Hair Relaxers, Kratom, NEC Baby Formula, Ozempic, Social Media, Video Game Addiction, Depo-Provera and Talcum Powder.

The Toxic Torts Section

Rhon Jones leads our firm’s Toxic Torts Section with Section Director Tracie Harrison’s assistance. The section focuses on toxic exposure cases. Recent cases involve Camp Lejeune Water Contamination, Paraquat and Firefighting Foam. 

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section

Dee Miles is the Section Head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Michelle Fulmer is the Director of the Section. The section currently handles cases involving Business Litigation, Class Action, Consumer Protection, Securities cases, Employment Law and Whistleblower cases.

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section

Cole Portis heads our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section with Sloan Downes serving as the Director of the Section. The section handles Auto Accidents, Aviation Accidents, Defective Tires, Negligent Security, On-the-Job Injuries and Truck Accident cases. 

The Administrative Section

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

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

The Latest Look At Case Activity At Beasley Allen

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

Practices

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

Cases 

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

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

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

• Acetaminophen
  Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Cases also include children treated with the drug during the first 18 months of life who developed autism or ADHD. 
• Auto Accidents
  Our lawyers handle life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence. Crashes may involve single vehicles, multiple vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, transit vehicles or trucks. 
• Auto Products
  Our team will meticulously investigate your accident, examine vehicles for defects or product liability issues, identify responsible parties, file lawsuits, manage legal documents, and strive to maximize your compensation.
• Aviation Accidents
  Lawyers investigate aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error and other causes. Crashes injure hundreds, sometimes thousands, of victims onboard aircraft and on the ground every year.
• Camp Lejeune 
  Our firm handles cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Exposure to toxic water caused serious injuries, including cancer, adult leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, major cardiac birth defects and others.
• Defective Tires
  Defective tires can lead to automobile accidents resulting in injury or even death. Beasley Allen lawyers investigate these accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures. 
• Depo-Provera
  We are investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral or spinal meningiomas.
• Firefighting Foam
  Beasley Allen investigates cases of Aqueous Film Forming Foam exposure. This firefighting foam contains highly toxic PFAS chemicals that can lead to cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility and other health risks.
• Hair Relaxers
  Our lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids or breast cancer.
• Kratom
  Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula
  Our firm investigates cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an intestinal disease that can lead to long-term complications and even death.
• Negligent Security 
  Establishment owners and managers are responsible for maintaining safe premises. When someone is injured or killed as a result of negligent security, Beasley Allen lawyers hold owners and managers accountable.
• On-the-Job-Injuries
  We investigate workers’ compensation cases, often finding that defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths. Quite often, the incident results in a product liability case. Industrial products include manufacturing, farming, construction or other types of equipment.
• Ozempic
  We investigate cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to the use of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat
  Our firm handles cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease that has been banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries. Paraquat remains legal in the U.S., risking the health and safety of workers on over 2 million U.S. farms.
• Social Media 
  Our youth are facing a mental health crisis caused by social media addiction. Beasley Allen advocates for these youth who have suffered harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide.
• Talcum Powder
  Beasley Allen handles cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder. For decades, companies like Johnson & Johnson knew that talcum powder might cause cancer but failed to warn consumers. 
• Truck Accidents 
  Our firm handles accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks. These cases often involve multiple, well-funded defendants and complex insurance issues.
• Video Game Addiction 
  We are investigating cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors, using psychological tactics.

Resources to Help Your Practice

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

The firm, by choice, only represents individuals, companies and governmental entities that have been wronged and have suffered damages due to the wrongdoing of another. Our lawyers do not handle any defense work, neither civil nor criminal. There are no exceptions. The only time we represent companies in Corporate America is when they are victims of wrongdoing and are plaintiffs in civil litigation. This has been our policy since the firm’s establishment.

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

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

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter 

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

Recalls Update

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

The Jere Beasley Report

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

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Tyner Helms, a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, has some trial tips for trial lawyers. Let’s see what Tyner has on the important subject of “closing arguments.”

Trial Tips: Closing Arguments

The unique part of closing arguments is that it gives attorneys an opportunity to address the jury and attempt to persuade them to return the verdict in their client’s favor. The closing argument is the lawyer’s chance to summarize all of the evidence that the jury has been presented throughout the trial. While this summary can be important, lawyers should avoid falling into a habit of merely providing a summary of the evidence to the jury. It is called “closing argument” for a reason. Instead of summing it up, it is more effective to take the key facts that have been proven during the trial and use those to argue the case. 

When making a closing argument, considering and addressing the jury’s perspective and point of view about the issues arising from your case is imperative. Even with concrete facts and indisputable law, the parties will struggle to significantly persuade a jury until the values of the community become part of the underlying themes of the arguments. For example, lawyers for the plaintiff side are taking the role of fighting for consumers and advocating for punishing fraud, safer products, corporate accountability, etc., and they must communicate that during closing.

Lawyers also have to invoke the jury’s code of right and wrong. Not only should the argument be interesting, but it must also relate to and motivatethe jury. Focus the jury’s attention on the facts in such a way that you will persuade the jurors to make their own proclamation of justice to rectify the situation. 

As the client’s legal representative, the lawyer has the responsibility to compel the jury to see the client as the unique human being that he/she is and not simply as “the plaintiff.” You must persuade them that their verdict is an opportunity to do something virtuous that carries a significant impact.  

At their core, juries are a group of people brought together for the purpose of bringing forth justice. You must make them realize this, which can be a difficult task. Initially, the jury may be focused on the fact that they have been inconveniently taken from their regular lives to render a decision regarding a complete stranger. The attorney’s job is to change this perception by involving the jury and making them feel by the end of the case as if they do know and identify with your client. 

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Ryan Beattie

Ryan Beattie, a lawyer in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, joined the firm in 2016.  Most of Ryan’s practice is focused on litigation concerning the connection between talcum powder products and ovarian cancer. Ryan shares that his journey to becoming a lawyer is deeply rooted in admiration for those who serve the public through the law. He says growing up around family friends who were lawyers sparked his interest early on, as he witnessed their commitment to helping others. Ryan says further: 

My enthusiasm for the legal profession blossomed further through watching legal dramas and reading John Grisham novels. That solidified my aspiration to attend law school long before I actually enrolled in college. 

For Ryan, the most rewarding aspect of practicing law is the ability to facilitate meaningful change, helping clients lead better and safer lives. It’s Ryan’s view that “what distinguishes Beasley Allen is its solid foundation of faith and unwavering support among its members.” He adds:

Through my experience, I’ve witnessed firsthand the genuine concern that all the partners, including Mr. Beasley, have for employees and their families during challenging times. This culture of emphasizing family, faith, and professional dedication not only creates a thriving work environment, but also provides me with a deep sense of fulfillment in my career.

 Outside of his professional life, Ryan cherishes time spent with his wife, Heidi, whom he met in college at the University of Nebraska, and their 7-year-old twins, Ryker and Layla, along with their three dogs. An outdoor enthusiast, Ryan enjoys activities like hunting, fishing, golfing, hiking, and camping, often sharing these passions with his children. He is also a dedicated supporter of the University of Nebraska sports teams and is actively involved in organizations like Ducks Unlimited and Delta Upsilon fraternity.  

We are thankful to have Ryan with us at Beasley Allen. He is a talented trial lawyer who is totally dedicated to his client’s best interests. 

Marissa Bonds

Marissa Bonds joined Beasley Allen in August 2022 in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section. She works as a staff assistant in the Section, providing vital support to Travis Chin, a lawyer in the section, on the Camp Lejeune litigation. In her role, Marissa plays a crucial part in ensuring the smooth operation of her section, demonstrating her commitment to her work every day. 

Outside of work, Marissa enjoys a robust family life with her husband, Anson. They share their home with two dogs and two cats, who surprisingly get along well. Marissa makes it a point to visit her family in Pensacola, Florida at least once a month, while also spending time with Anson’s family in Millbrook. The couple share a passion for music, frequently attending indie concerts in Montgomery and Birmingham, and they are avid sports fans, often cheering on the Biscuits baseball team and the Bulls hockey team. In her spare time, Marissa loves to immerse herself in fantasy novels, with her Kindle becoming her constant companion.

One of Marissa’s favorite aspects of working at Beasley Allen is the strong relationships she has built with her coworkers and clients. Marissa shares that she finds great fulfillment in assisting those around her and appreciates the supportive environment, where she knows she can rely on her colleagues whenever needed. 

Marissa is a dedicated, hard-working employee and a definite asset to the firm. We are fortunate to have her at Beasley Allen.

Heather Hall

Heather Hall has been an integral part of the Beasley Allen team since March 2011, initially joining the firm as a temporary employee before being officially hired on a permanent basis in May 2012. As a Paralegal in the Mass Tort Section, Heather plays a vital role in supporting clients regarding the Talcum Powder litigation and navigating the complexities of their cases with diligence and care.  

Outside of work, Heather cherishes her husband, James, and their daughter, McKenna. McKenna has graduated from high school ahead of schedule and is preparing to start her studies at Southern Union College next fall. James works as a teacher at the Elmore County Technical Center. The family places high value on spending quality time together, often engaging in game nights and hosting pool parties. 

Beyond her family life, Heather takes an active role in her community as the Junior Vice President of the Wetumpka VFW Auxiliary. This organization is dedicated to supporting veterans, service members, and their families through a variety of initiatives, including volunteer efforts and scholarships. Heather finds immense satisfaction in making a difference in the lives of those who have served. 

On another note, Heather says she and James enjoy the sport of darts, taking part in the Montgomery Soft Tip Dart League and competing in local tournaments.

Heather says one of her favorite aspects of working at Beasley Allen is the collaboration with the lawyers. She adds:

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work alongside many dedicated attorneys, gaining invaluable experience and insight through their mentorship. Their commitment to providing exceptional service to clients inspires me to continuously enhance my skills and compassion as a paralegal.

Heather is another hard-working employee who is dedicated to helping clients receive justice. We are fortunate to have her at Beasley Allen.

Ben Keen

Ben Keen is a lawyer in the firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section and is located in our Atlanta office.  He joined Beasley Allen in 2018, focusing on catastrophic injury cases, including tractor-trailer accidents. Inspired by his father, who is also a lawyer, Ben says he developed an interest in law at a young age. This interest developed over time into a passion that is fueled by his desire to help people in their darkest hours. Ben says: 

Beasley Allen shares this passion, it’s important to put the client first and to be motivated by genuine intentions, this in turn results in passionate representation and just results. 

Ben is known at the firm for his attention to detail and his analytical approach during litigation.  Ben is actively involved in various organizations, including the Georgia State Bar, Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, and the Southside Metro Atlanta Trial Lawyers Association. He also serves on the board of the Clayton County Bar Association.

Ben earned his Juris Doctorate from Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law in May 2018. He also broadened his academic horizons by studying at Cambridge University and Sidney Sussex College in England through a study abroad program. During law school, Ben was named “Best Advocate” and consistently made the Dean’s List while actively participating in prestigious trial teams and forums. In his senior year, Ben served as class President, Associate Justice of the Advocacy Program, and was selected by his peers to deliver the Graduation Farewell Address during the 2018 graduation ceremony. He also holds a B.A. from the University of Mississippi, obtained in 2013.

Outside of work, Ben enjoys spending time with his wife, Sarah, their daughter, Aspen, and their French Bulldog, Winnie Lou. He and his family are avid Atlanta Braves fans and attend numerous games each season. He is a music enthusiast and enjoys various outdoor activities from skiing and hiking to a family picnic at a local park. Ben is passionate about his family and loves cooking for them and his friends.

Ben’s dedication to his clients and his profession, combined with his impressive track record, makes him a standout lawyer in the field of catastrophic injury law. We are blessed to have Ben with us!

Valerie Scroggins

Valerie Scroggins is a Legal Secretary in the firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, where she supports Larry Golston, Leon Hampton Jr., and Jessica Haynes, lawyers in the section. Valerie brings invaluable experience and a genuine passion for her work. With over 20 years spent specifically assisting Larry Golston, she values the camaraderie and teamwork that defines her workplace. 

Outside of her professional life, Valerie cherishes her family. Her daughter, Shanna, resides in Adams, Tennessee with her husband Jud, and their two sons, Jordan (16) and Gavin (12). Valerie enjoys visiting them often to watch her grandsons play football. Her son, Trevor, lives in Prattville, Alabama with his wife, Nikki, and their three sons, Layton (16), Carter (13), and Tripp (5). Valerie says that being close allows her to enjoy attending their events, from baseball games to band performances. In her spare time, Valerie indulges in hobbies such as reading, tending to her yard and flowers, and nurturing relationships with family and friends. With her grandsons at the center of her activities, she finds joy in being actively involved in their lives. 

Valerie says her favorite thing about her job is working closely with everyone in the section, including Section Head Dee Miles, Director Michelle Fulmer, and a dedicated team of lawyers and support staff. Valerie says:

It’s a fantastic group of people to be around, the tight-knit, family-like environment that characterizes the department.

Valerie is a definite asset to the firm. She works hard and is dedicated to Beasley Allen clients. We are fortunate to have her with us. 

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Chad Cook Receives Beasley Allen’s 2024 Chad Stewart Award

Chad Cook, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section, has been honored with the prestigious 2024 Chad Stewart Award, named in memory of Beasley Allen lawyer Chad Stewart. Tragically, Chad Stewart passed away in 2014 at the age of 41. This award celebrates Chad’s dedication to God, his family, and the legal profession. Each year, Beasley Allen bestows this award on a Beasley Allen lawyer who has best embodied during the year the values and spirit that Chad Stewart exemplified.

Chad Cook has been a dedicated member of the Beasley Allen Law Firm for over two decades. In addition to his legal work, Chad coordinates the firm’s pro bono efforts, demonstrating his commitment to community service. He believes that pro bono work is a vital way for the legal profession to give back to society. In his role, Chad ensures that both lawyers and staff are aware of available pro bono opportunities and encourages their participation. He also collaborates with clients to identify pro bono cases that the firm can undertake, matching these cases with lawyers who have the appropriate experience.

Chad has also served as the president of the Montgomery County Association for Justice (MCAJ). During his tenure, he presented Judge Charles Price with a commemorative plaque upon his retirement in 2015 and announced the establishment of the Judge Charles Price Leadership Award. This award is given annually to individuals who demonstrate qualities reflecting Judge Price’s dedication and courage in upholding justice.

In addition to his professional achievements, Chad Cook has contributed to legal education as an instructor in Civil Procedure and Evidence at Faulkner University and as a member of the Legal Studies Advisory Committee. He also mentors law students through the Thomas Goode Jones Professional Development Program, helping them connect with practicing attorneys and promoting professionalism in the legal field.

Chad Cook’s excellence has also been recognized by his selection to the National Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA) Top 100 Trial Lawyers list. Chad is an extremely talented lawyer who is dedicated to obtaining justice for his clients. His outside activity is an example of how trial lawyers can help others in a multitude of ways in a non-litigation capacity. We encourage that at Beasley Allen. 

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Ryan Beattie and Valerie Scroggins, who are highlighted this month, share their favorite Bible verses with us. While this is voluntary, I personally encourage it. 

Ryan Beattie

Ryan Beattie offers two of his favorite verses. 

Everything you do should be done in love. 1 Corinthians 16:14

Love does not give up. Love is kind. Love is not jealous. Love does not put itself up as being important. Love has no pride. 5 Love does not do the wrong thing. Love never thinks of itself. Love does not get angry. Love does not remember the suffering that comes from being hurt by someone. 6 Love is not happy with sin. Love is happy with the truth. 7 Love takes everything that comes without giving up. Love believes all things. Love hopes for all things. Love keeps on in all things.8 Love never comes to an end. The gift of speaking God’s Word will come to an end. The gift of speaking in special sounds will be stopped. The gift of understanding will come to an end. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

Valerie Scroggins

Valerie Scroggins shares three of her favorite verses with us. She says the first one reminds her of a time many years ago when she was struggling with an issue and felt like she was in the fight of her life.  She said the Holy Spirit revealed this verse to her, and from that moment on she stopped worrying over her issue, gave it to the Lord, and meditated on this verse. The issue resolved itself and she never had to think about it again.   

The Lord will fight for you. All you have to do is keep still. Exodus 14:14

Valerie says the second verse reminds her that the Holy Spirit is a special gift given to Christians to help guide them through life.  She adds that the Lord Jesus is our comforter. He reveals the truth to us, counsels us, and gives us understanding.  

Then I will ask My Father and He will give you another Helper. He will be with you forever. 17 He is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot receive Him. It does not see Him or know Him. You know Him because He lives with you and will be in you. 18 “I will not leave you without help as children without parents. I will come to you. John 14: 16-18

The third verse serves as a reminder that our words can tear down or lift up.  They can also separate us from those dearest to us. Valerie says her goal is to always be mindful of the words she chooses to say to anyone, not just those dearest to her.

Let the words of my mouth and the thoughts of my heart be pleasing in Your eyes, O Lord, my Rock and the One Who saves me. Psalms 19:14

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

The Texas Two-Step Is Used By Huge Corporations To Deny Justice To Victims Of Corporate Abuse And Wrongdoing

The Texas Two-Step is being used by a number of huge corporations to deny justice to thousands of their victims. We have written about Johnson & Johnson and 3M as two such examples. In this issue, we will take a look at another instance of how the bankruptcy court is being improperly used by powerful corporations. In its creation, this Texas law was never intended to be used in the manner it is currently being used by huge, powerful companies. 

A group of injury claimants is urging the Fourth Circuit to dismiss Georgia-Pacific unit Bestwall’s attempt to handle asbestos liability through the use of the controversial “Texas two-step” concept. This is a Chapter 11 case in the bankruptcy court. The claimants argue this move is “grotesquely inequitable” and contradicts bankruptcy principles.

In an amicus brief, the committee of asbestos personal injury claimants from Trane Technologies subsidiaries, Aldrich Pump and Murray Boiler, stated that Bestwall is not in financial distress and should not be allowed to use bankruptcy as a shield. They referenced the Third Circuit’s dismissal of Johnson & Johnson’s talc-related bankruptcy cases, emphasizing that wealthy corporations should not use divisional mergers to claim financial distress.

The claimants argue that Bestwall’s bankruptcy should be dismissed because Georgia-Pacific’s commitments to fund asbestos liabilities mean Bestwall isn’t truly financially distressed. The Fourth Circuit has agreed to hear the appeal.

Lawmakers, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, are pushing to limit “Texas two-step” style bankruptcies. The Aldrich committee supports the Bestwall claimants’ appeal and counters arguments from Trane and others, highlighting that profitable companies should not separate assets and liabilities to protect shareholders while leaving little for creditors.

Bestwall filed for Chapter 11 in 2017 after a divisional merger by Georgia-Pacific, which left Bestwall with significant asbestos liabilities. The asbestos claimants’ earlier attempt to dismiss the case was unsuccessful, but they were granted permission to appeal directly to the Fourth Circuit.

The official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants in the Aldrich Pump and Murray Boiler cases is represented by Kevin C. Maclay, Todd E. Phillips and Jeffrey A. Liesemer of Caplin & Drysdale Chartered, and Elizabeth J. Ireland, David Neier and Carrie V. Hardman of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The appellate Bestwall case is The Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall LLC v. Bestwall LLC, case number 24-1493, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

MONTHLY REMINDERS

These reminders are for all of us at Beasley Allen. They are put in the Report for a purpose. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. While they are for all at Beasley Allen, we send them to all who get the Report. All persons in a leadership role, including those persons in government at every level, will benefit by reading the quotes and applying the lessons learned from them in their daily lives. 

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

2 Chronicles 7:14

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

Edmund Burke

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

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

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

Martin Luther King, Jr. 

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

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

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

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

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

Bryan Stevenson, 2019

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

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

PARTING WORDS

A Look Ahead To 2025

We are blessed to live in America. The New Year, with all of its challenges, will be filled with opportunities to improve our country. People must strive to build up America rather than tearing it down. Our country has become more divided than ever, and that must change. We must work to bring people back together and unified as one America.

A unified America will ensure that all people will enjoy security, joy and peace. That is a responsibility that both political parties and their leaders share. 

As we enter 2025, my prayer is that America will become a unified nation. The U.S. Constitution must be honored and the Rule of Law enforced in a bipartisan manner. Freedom, liberty, and justice are the rights of all Americans. It’s our responsibility to make those rights a reality. Let’s help make it happen! 

God bless America!!