The Jere Beasley Report June 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

A Tradition of Triumph, Advocacy & Record-Setting Accomplishments

Beasley Allen has been a cornerstone of justice over the past several decades. I started the firm as a sole practitioner in 1979. Now, with over 45 years of existence, the firm has grown to become one of the largest law firms in the nation, representing only plaintiffs. Over the years, we have secured more than $32 billion in verdicts and settlements.

Verdicts and Settlements

The firm’s track record is a testament to our success and our total dedication to our clients, justice, and the Rule of Law. Beasley Allen lawyers have secured some of the largest jury verdicts and settlements in U.S. history, including:

• $4.85 billion: the largest pharmaceutical drug settlement 

• $11.9 billion: the largest verdict against an oil company 

• $1.3 billion: the largest state Medicaid fraud settlement 

• $700 million: the largest individual private environmental settlement 

• $581 million: the largest predatory lending jury verdict 

• $162 Million: the largest settlement in Georgia history from a single motor vehicle accident

• $110 Million: the largest personal injury settlement in Alabama history involving a single motor vehicle collision

In 2024, lawyers in our Atlanta office achieved a record-breaking year for the firm, securing over $219 million in verdicts and settlements. This impressive sum includes a 9-figure settlement and multiple 8-figure settlements in trucking, product liability, and premises liability cases. Additionally, the Atlanta office secured numerous 7-figure settlements in commercial vehicle and premises liability cases. 

What Sets Us Apart? 

I have been asked on numerous occasions to explain what sets Beasley Allen apart from other law firms. My response is that a commitment to justice, dating back to  1979, has been the guiding principle of Beasley Allen, shaping our approach in every case we handle. Over the decades since our start-up, the firm has expanded its reach, opening offices in Atlanta and Mobile and establishing a national presence. We have successfully handled cases all around the country and have worked with a large number of very good lawyers. 

At Beasley Allen, our core values of hard work, dedication, and the pursuit of justice are more than just principles—they are the foundation of our success. Our lawyers are recognized leaders in their respective fields, often receiving prestigious awards and honors. Beyond the professional achievements of our lawyers and support staff, Beasley Allen is deeply committed to making a positive impact on the lives of our clients and the community. We also have the goal of improving product, workplace, and highway safety for the public. I must say we have met that goal on numerous occasions. A prime example is securing ROP protection on farm tractors as a result of the Spivey case. 

Join Us in Our Pursuit of Justice

Since 2012, Beasley Allen has paid over $482 million in co-counsel and referral fees to lawyers. This substantial amount underscores our collaborative approach and commitment to working with other firms to achieve the best possible outcomes for our clients. We recognize and appreciate the relationship we have with lawyers who get us involved in their cases. 

With decades of experience, Beasley Allen maximizes results for our clients by combining our extensive resources, vast experience, and knowledge. We are grateful for the trust and collaboration of our fellow lawyers, who continue to partner with us to achieve the best outcomes for their clients.

I can say without reservation that Beasley Allen does things the right way and for the right reason. Our clients have been the beneficiaries of that reality. 

TALC LITIGATION

Talcum Powder Litigation Update

Beasley Allen lawyers have returned to the civil judicial system to continue pursuing justice for our clients diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products.  Within hours of the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of J&J’s third bankruptcy attempt, Johnson & Johnson issued a public statement that it would not appeal the dismissal and would return to the system.  

 In the Talcum Powder Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), Judge Shipp will hold a status conference on June 17.  The status conference will address motions that were pending when the Red River bankruptcy was filed, as well as the scheduling of bellwether trials, which were put on hold by the bankruptcy filing.  We anticipate similar status conferences being scheduled in the New Jersey State Court consolidated litigation and in cases pending in other state courts around the country.

Meanwhile, during its fifth day, the confirmation hearing for Imerys and Cyprus Chapter 11 bankruptcy plans was abruptly put on hold due to foreign claim issues.  The bankrupt talc suppliers say that they need additional time to make changes to the current plan in a way that it can be confirmed without a re-solicitation of creditor votes.  The parties were to have filed the amended plan by May 23, with the goal of resuming the trial in late June.

Source: Law360

FDA Panel Highlights Ongoing Cancer Risks Associated with Talc

A panel of medical experts convened by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has strongly recommended that the agency study and implement new standards to ban the use of talc in consumer products such as gum, candy, rice, and pharmaceuticals. This recommendation is based on over 30 years of research linking talc use to ovarian cancer. Dr. George Tidmarsh, a pediatric neonatologist at Stanford University, stated, “It’s clear (talc) is carcinogenic and inflammatory and there’s very little doubt about this.” He emphasized that the focus should be on how and when to remove talc from the U.S. market.

Dr. Tidmarsh highlighted contributions from experts like Dr. Daniel Cramer, who published a pivotal study in 1982 revealing an 82% increased risk of ovarian cancer among women using talc-based powders for feminine hygiene. Since then, more than 40 studies have supported this association. Additionally, many tests, including those conducted by the FDA, have found asbestos in cosmetic talc, further raising health concerns.

The National Institutes of Health has noted “compelling evidence” of the link between genital talc use and ovarian cancer. That view was echoed by the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium and the National Academy of Medicine. The International Agency for Research on Cancer also upgraded the classification of cancer risk from talc use from “possible” to “probable.” 

Andy Birchfield, who leads the talc litigation team at our firm, made this observation: 

It was encouraging to see this distinguished panel with representatives from the FDA, NIH and the nation’s leading hospitals and medical schools agree that there remains little doubt about the causal link between talc and cancer. In recent years, the science showing the dangers of talc exposure to women has only increased, with no new studies to indicate otherwise, and we look forward to presenting that evidence in court at the earliest possible opportunity.

This report by the panel is most significant, and it totally destroys J&J’s continuing denial of liability in the Talc litigation. 

Judge Drops J&J Executives From Talc Bankruptcy Fraud Suit

A New Jersey magistrate judge has dismissed several Johnson & Johnson (J&J) executives from a class action lawsuit filed by cancer patients. The suit accuses J&J of using fraudulent bankruptcy tactics to avoid paying claims related to its talc products, which caused cancer.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh approved a joint request from both sides to remove J&J’s CEO and CFO from the case and to replace LTL Management LLC with Red River Talc LLC as the lead defendant. As previously reported, Red River is a newer J&J subsidiary created during the company’s third attempt to resolve talc claims through bankruptcy — an effort that was also dismissed by the court.

The plaintiffs argue that J&J engaged in a series of fraudulent corporate maneuvers — including asset transfers and multiple bankruptcy filings — to delay or avoid compensating victims. In review, these include the 2021 creation of LTL through a “Texas two-step” merger, the 2022 transfer of assets to a new company called Kenvue, and the 2023 reduction of a funding agreement from $61.5 billion to $29.9 billion.

All three bankruptcy attempts by J&J have been thrown out, with courts finding the filings were made in bad faith and not due to genuine financial distress. The plaintiffs’ updated complaint now includes Red River’s creation as part of J&J’s alleged scheme to sidestep liability.

The plaintiffs are represented by Richard M. Golomb and Kevin W. Fay of Golomb Legal PC and Brian A. Glasser, David L. Selby II, Thomas B. Bennett, D. Todd Mathews and Michael L. Shenkman of Bailey & Glasser LLP.

The case is Love et al. v. Red River Talc LLC et al., case number 3:24-cv-06320, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

Brown Rudnick Seeks $4.3 Million In Fees For Talc Bankruptcy Case

Brown Rudnick LLP is requesting authorization from a Texas bankruptcy judge for nearly $4.3 million in fees for its work with the talc claimants committee in the Red River Talc Chapter 11 case. The firm argues that its previous work against Johnson & Johnson’s talc spin-off bankruptcies should not be held against it.

In a reply filed in the case, Brown Rudnick contended that the debtor’s opposition to paying for its work seemed driven by “extreme animosity” toward Johnson & Johnson’s opponents, rather than by the Bankruptcy Code or case law. The firm emphasized that the debtor’s objection did not demonstrate that Brown Rudnick held any adverse interest to the committee due to its past representations.

As widely reported, the Red River Talc Chapter 11 was dismissed on March 31. That was Johnson & Johnson’s third attempt to resolve billions in liabilities related to alleged asbestos-contaminated talc through a Texas two-step spin-off and bankruptcy. Brown Rudnick had represented the talc claimants committee in the previous two cases and was counsel for the Coalition of Counsel for Justice for Talc Claimants, which opposed the proposed Chapter 11 plans in the first two cases and the Red River case. After the Red River case was filed, Brown Rudnick was retained by the newly formed official talc claimants committee, which supported the proposed Red River plan.

In addition to the fee request, Brown Rudnick is seeking over $79,000 in expenses for its work for the committee. Red River objected, citing an “ethical violation” under local rules for Brown Rudnick to argue positions opposite to those it argued for the coalition without written permission from all coalition members.

Brown Rudnick asserted in its filing that there was no conflict under the Bankruptcy Code for representing a party adverse to Johnson & Johnson before the committee was formed. The firm had obtained permission from coalition members for the change, and the committee chose Brown Rudnick to represent the coalition’s viewpoints.

The firm argued that the committee never viewed Brown Rudnick as holding any adverse interest to its goals. It was suggested by the firm that the objection stemmed from “bitter conflicts” between the debtor and Beasley Allen. Our firm is a coalition member, and we opposed all three Johnson & Johnson filings and clashed with the debtor in Red River. J&J has singled out Beasley Allen in constant aggressive attacks. 

Brown Rudnick is represented in-house by Susan Sieger-Grimm, David J. Molton, Jeffrey L. Jonas and Eric R. Goodman.

The case is In re: Red River Talc LLC, case number 4:24-bk-90505, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

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

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

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

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

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

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Toxic Delays: How Bureaucracy Is Failing Camp Lejeune Victims

As the third anniversary of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act approaches, the government’s promise of justice for hundreds of thousands of victims remains almost entirely unfulfilled. Despite over 410,000 claims having been filed by those exposed to and harmed by the toxic water at the North Carolina military base, bureaucratic efforts by the Department of Justice have been successful thus far, preventing a single case from going to trial.

This staggering backlog is more than a bureaucratic failure; it is a humanitarian crisis. Beasley Allen lawyers handling this litigation estimate that nearly 30% of Camp Lejeune claims involve individuals who have passed away, many from illnesses linked to their exposure. For the living, time is running out. These victims are aging, many battling severe health conditions such as cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other debilitating illnesses caused by years of exposure to contaminated water. 

The government’s delay tactics are not only denying justice, but they are also compounding the harm. As victims die from injuries related to their Camp Lejeune exposure, our lawyers are amending to add and pursue wrongful death claims, increasing the damages being sought against the government.  What should have been resolved through timely settlements is now evolving into a more complex and expensive legal battle.

Court-appointed Settlement Masters have indicated they are working towards a resolution by the end of the year. While this is encouraging, it is also incredibly ambitious given that their efforts towards this goal hinge on the federal government’s willingness to engage. So far, there’s little evidence of meaningful participation or urgency from the Department of Justice or the Navy. 

Congressional efforts to expedite the process through additional legislation have largely stalled, leaving victims and their families in mounting frustration. The lack of urgency is especially harsh given the nature of the harm: toxic exposure at the hands of the government to individuals who were serving their country or living on a military base they trusted to be safe.

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act was a landmark piece of legislation, intended to right a historic wrong. Our firm continues to fight and advocate for these victims at every level. Hopefully, the DOJ will begin to do the right thing and help ensure that justice is served. 

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Team

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

First Personal Injury Bellwether Trials Set In Social Media JCCP

The nation’s largest personal injury litigation against social media giants Meta, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube is heading toward bellwether trials. The Social Media JCCP consists of more than 2,400 personal injury cases filed by plaintiffs from 44 different states. On April 15, 2025, Judge Carolyn Kuhl of the Los Angeles Superior Court selected nine plaintiffs for the first round of trials, with the first trial scheduled to begin jury selection on November 18, 2025. 

The first trial revolves around Plaintiff Heaven Moore’s usage of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. Plaintiff Moore, a California resident who started using social media as a minor, alleges injuries of social media addiction, body dysmorphia, eating disorder, depression, anxiety, sleep disorder, and suicidality. 

The second bellwether trial involves a 19-year-old female plaintiff, also from California, alleging injuries of social media addiction, anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, an eating disorder, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and a suicide attempt against Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. 

The third bellwether plaintiff is a 14-year-old male from Florida, alleging similar injuries against the same group of defendants. 

The parties are also working up a separate group of both personal injury and school district bellwether cases in the related federal MDL in Oakland, CA. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is anticipated to select the first round of federal bellwether trials on June 13^th. 

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

Google and Character.AI Face Lawsuit Involving Their Role In Teenager’s Death

A Florida federal judge has allowed most claims in a lawsuit against Character.AI and Google to proceed. The lawsuit involves the tragic suicide of a 14-year-old boy, Sewell Setzer. The lawsuit, filed by his mother, Megan Garcia, alleges that the teenager became addicted to the Character.AI chatbot, which presented itself as a real person and even a romantic partner. U.S. District Judge Anne C. Conway ruled that the app qualifies as a “product” under product liability law because the alleged harm stemmed from design defects, not just the content or ideas it generated.

Judge Conway dismissed only one claim—intentional infliction of emotional distress—due to insufficient allegations of outrageous conduct. However, she found that the plaintiff adequately claimed the companies failed to implement safety measures despite knowing the risks. The judge also acknowledged Google’s significant role in developing the underlying technology and infrastructure used by Character.AI, allowing claims against Google to move forward.

This ruling is being seen by observers as a historic decision. That’s because it opens the door for holding tech companies accountable as component parts manufacturers. Google denied responsibility, stating it neither created nor managed the app. This case will be watched closely as it moves forward in the system. Beasley Allen lawyers will monitor its progress. 

The plaintiff is represented by Matthew P. Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center, Amy Judkins of Newsome Melton PA and Meetali Jain of the Tech Justice Law Project.

The case is Megan Garcia v. Character Technologies Inc. et al., case number 6:24-cv-01903, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Source: Law360

Video Game Addiction Cases Consolidated in California State Court

On May 7, 2025, California’s Judicial Council approved the consolidation of multiple lawsuits alleging video game addiction into a single action, now known as Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) No.  5363. These cases, which involve major gaming companies such as Epic Games, Roblox Corporation, Microsoft, and Mojang, will be coordinated under the oversight of Judge Samantha P. Jessner in Los Angeles Superior Court.  

The lawsuits allege that these companies have deliberately designed their games to encourage compulsive use, particularly among youth. These practices contribute to unhealthy gaming behaviors, addiction-like symptoms, and cognitive deficits, leading to adverse educational impacts.

By consolidating cases, the court system aims to streamline the pretrial process and minimize conflicts across jurisdictions. The decision to combine the lawsuits reflects growing concerns over the potential harm caused by video game mechanics designed to give them addictive qualities.  Beasley Allen is fully committed to the video game addiction litigation, and our lawyers are continuously available to help those who have been harmed by these companies.

The Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team

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

Social Media Litigation Team

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

MOTOR VEHICLE LITIGATION

$110 Million Settlement- The Largest in Alabama History

We are pleased to announce a landmark achievement – the largest personal injury settlement in the history of Alabama, totaling $110 million. Our success in this case is a testament to the meticulous legal work and unwavering dedication of our trial team, consisting of Greg Allen, Cole Portis, & Stephanie Monplaisir.

The relentless pursuit of justice by these lawyers and their ability to navigate complex legal challenges ensured that our clients received the substantial compensation they deserved. This landmark settlement is not just a win for our clients, but a testament to the power of perseverance and legal advocacy by lawyers on the trial team. It was a hard-fought case that ended up in a settlement. 

Lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section are nationally recognized for their success in representing clients across the country who have suffered serious injuries. Whether it’s a motor vehicle accident, a workplace incident, or harm caused by a defective product, our lawyers understand the physical, psychological, and emotional toll these injuries take on our clients and their families. They also understand what it takes to prepare a case for trial. 

The settlement was achieved by lawyers on the trial team who were totally dedicated to seeing that justice was done. They put the clients’ interests first and foremost and did a tremendous job of developing the case. 

New Rules Related To Autonomous Vehicle Development

Federal and California regulators have each proposed new rules designed to boost the development of autonomous vehicles (AVs). However, widespread commercial deployment of AVs in the U.S. shouldn’t happen in the immediate future. Beasley Allen lawyers believe there is too much uncertainty involving safety issues to rush AVs to our highways.  

In any event, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) introduced proposals that appear aimed toward more rapid acceleration of AV development.

NHTSA announced it would expand its exemption program for AV developers, allowing U.S.-made vehicles to apply for exemptions from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). This program (known as Part 591) has been limited to non-commercial research and demonstration activities. NHTSA is also exploring streamlining another exemption program (Part 555), which could facilitate commercial AV deployment.

The California DMV proposed new permitting rules for testing and deploying light-duty and heavy-duty autonomous vehicles on public roads. These steps are seen by some observers as positive momentum for the AV industry. 

Beasley Allen lawyers who handle motor vehicle litigation believe a strong regulatory environment is an absolute necessity. Safety must be top priority for all concerned. 

A number of experts believe the changes stated above will help the AV industry navigate regulations better, prioritize safety, and enable innovation and commercial deployment. Hopefully, they are correct. Full-scale commercial deployment at this juncture is still limited. The changes mentioned above are incremental rather than transformative. Beasley Allen lawyers remain greatly concerned over the safety of these vehicles at this juncture. 

Source: Law360

Ongoing Litigation Against Tesla

The American automotive and energy company Tesla, Inc. has faced numerous civil lawsuits throughout its history. We will take a look at the litigation involving non-personal injury cases against Tesla. These legal battles span a wide range of issues, from labor practices to securities litigation, reflecting the complexities and challenges of being a major player in the electric vehicle and clean energy sectors. We will give an overview of some of the most significant civil cases against Tesla. Remember, this overview will not include personal injury or death cases resulting from vehicle crashes. 

One of the most notable ongoing lawsuits against Tesla involves allegations of racial discrimination at its Fremont factory. In 2017, Marcus Vaughn, a former assembly line worker, filed a class action lawsuit claiming that black employees were subjected to racist conduct, including slurs, graffiti, and nooses hung at their workstations. Tesla has denied these allegations, calling the lawsuit a “hotbed of misinformation.” As of February 2024, the class status of approximately 5,977 black employees involved in the suit was approved by a judge.

In April 2018, Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta filed a lawsuit in Delaware requesting that Elon Musk’s $55 billion pay package be rescinded. The case, Tornetta v. Musk, et al, culminated in January 2024 when Judge Kathaleen McCormick ruled that the compensation granted by Tesla’s board was unfair to shareholders. This ruling led to Tesla’s reincorporation in Texas and the reapproval of Musk’s compensation by shareholders in June 2024.

Tesla has also faced legal challenges related to its acquisition of SolarCity, a solar energy services company. Shareholders filed lawsuits claiming that the acquisition was not in Tesla’s best interest and that it primarily benefited Elon Musk and his family, who were major shareholders in SolarCity. These lawsuits underscored the complexities of corporate governance and acquisition strategies within Tesla.

In August and September 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Tesla and Elon Musk regarding Musk’s tweets about potentially taking the company private. The case, In re Tesla Inc. Securities Litigation, ended in February 2023 with a jury finding Musk and Tesla not liable. This lawsuit highlighted the impact of social media usage by corporate executives on market movements and investor welfare.

Cristina Balan, an automotive design engineer, filed a defamation lawsuit against Tesla and Elon Musk, alleging that Tesla made defamatory statements about her, including accusations of theft, after an article about her was published in the Huffington Post. Tesla moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in Balan’s employment contract, reflecting the company’s approach to handling disputes with former employees.

Tesla has also been involved in lawsuits concerning labor practices and workplace safety. The California Civil Rights Department has taken legal action against Tesla for allegations of a work environment rife with racial discrimination. Additionally, Tesla has faced scrutiny over its handling of workplace injuries and safety protocols, leading to various legal disputes. We will write on that subject in the July issue. 

The company’s legal challenges discussed above have not only shaped its corporate narrative but also influenced public perception and policy discussions regarding technology, sustainability, and corporate responsibility. The outcomes of the Tesla cases will likely have lasting implications for the company and the broader automotive industry.

Source: Claims Journal

TRUCKING LITIGATION

$2.99 Million Commercial Truck Crash Settlement Secured

Ken Wilson, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, recently reached a $2,990,000 settlement for his clients in a hotly contested case involving a motor vehicle collision. The vehicle at fault was a commercial truck.

Accident Overview

On September 27, 2023, Ken’s client was driving his Toyota Tacoma and was trying to turn left at the intersection of Rackley Road and Highway 52. As he went through the intersection, a Ford Super Duty truck, speeding 15 miles over the limit, crashed into the back driver’s side of the client’s vehicle. The force of the impact propelled his vehicle into a parked car at a nearby gas station. The striking truck continued moving for several yards before coming to a stop.

As a result of the accident, Ken’s client suffered multiple serious injuries, including fractures to his ribs, scapula, and spine. Despite these injuries, the client received several citations from the responding officer, who claimed that our client was responsible for the accident.

Collision & Claims

At the time of the collision, the commercial truck driver was performing duties within the scope of his employment. The companies did not properly screen or supervise the driver. Evidence was shown by Ken to support two main points: 1) the driver should have been aware of the approaching intersection because of different traffic signs, and 2) the crash could have been avoided if the driver had stayed within the speed limit.

Triumph In Trucking Cases

Lawyers at Beasley Allen who handle commercial truck litigation know how life-changing a trucking accident can be. They have been able to help victims in their cases. With decades of experience and many successes, either by way of verdicts or settlements, our lawyers have a proven track record of standing up to big trucking companies and their insurers. Our lawyers work hard, uncover facts, get documents and other needed information, and fight to get justice for clients and the compensation they deserve. 

If you or a loved one has been injured in a truck crash, having lawyers experienced in trucking litigation can make all the difference. 

A Review Of 2025 Motor Vehicle Recalls

There have been a significant number of motor vehicle recalls thus far in 2025, affecting various major automakers and millions of vehicles worldwide. These recalls highlight critical safety concerns ranging from engine failures to software defects, emphasizing the importance of vehicle owners staying informed and proactive about potential issues. We will provide an overview of the most notable recalls so far in 2025, the reasons behind them, and the steps owners can take to address these issues.

Motor Vehicle Recalls 2025

• General Motors (GM)
  General Motors has issued a recall for nearly 600,000 Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC vehicles due to engine issues that could lead to damage or total failure. The affected models include:
  • Cadillac Escalade (2021-2024)
  • Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (2021-2024)
  • GMC Sierra 1500 (2021-2024)
• The recall is due to manufacturing defects in the connecting rod and crankshaft engine components, which can cause engine failure. Owners may notice warning signs such as knocking sounds, check engine lights, or abnormal engine performance.
• Ford
  Ford has recalled nearly 300,000 Super Duty trucks due to failing fuel pumps. This issue has been ongoing since 2020 and poses a significant risk of engine stalling and potential accidents.
• Ford recalled 272,000 Bronco Sport and Maverick vehicles due to faulty 12V batteries, which can lead to electronics failure while driving.
• Ford recalled 273,000 SUVs due to issues with leaking brake lines. The vehicles affected include certain 2022-2024 Navigators and Expeditions.
• Volvo
  Volvo has recalled over 400,000 vehicles due to a software defect affecting the backup camera. The affected models range from 2021 to 2025. This defect can impair the driver’s ability to see behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of accidents.
• Toyota
  Toyota has issued a recall for over 106,000 Tacoma trucks due to brake failure caused by the buildup of mud and dirt in the rear wheels. This issue affects 2024-2025 models with four-wheel drive, 16-inch brakes, and 17-inch wheels.
• Tesla
  Tesla has recalled more than 239,000 electric vehicles due to rearview camera malfunctions. This defect can compromise the driver’s visibility and increase the risk of collisions.
  • Other Notable Recalls
    Lincoln Nautilus: Over 47,000 SUVs recalled due to power window issues.
  • Kia Seltos: More than 74,000 vehicles recalled due to headlight and taillight malfunctions.
  • Jeep Cherokee: 63,000 vehicles recalled due to transmission issues.
  • Honda & Acura: Nearly 300,000 vehicles recalled due to engine stall issues.

Steps for Vehicle Owners
If you own any of the recalled vehicles, it is crucial to take immediate action to ensure your safety and the safety of others on the road. Here are the steps you should follow:

• Check Recall Status: Visit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website or your vehicle manufacturer’s website to check if your vehicle is affected by a recall.
• Contact Dealership: Reach out to your local dealership to schedule an inspection and repair. Most recalls involve free repairs or replacements.
• Stay Informed: Keep an eye on news and updates regarding vehicle recalls to stay informed about any new issues that may arise.

The numerous recalls so far this year underscore the importance of vehicle safety and the need for manufacturers to address defects promptly. Vehicle owners should remain vigilant and proactive in checking for recalls and ensuring their vehicles are in safe operating condition. By staying informed and taking necessary actions, drivers can help prevent accidents and ensure a safer driving experience for everyone.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Common Defenses To Expect In Auto Product Liability Cases

Motor vehicle product liability cases involve legal claims against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers for injuries caused by defective products. These cases are complex and require a thorough understanding of a state’s liability laws and the specific circumstances surrounding the defect. We will discuss in this issue cases under Georgia law. 

Typically, auto product liability claims fall into three main categories: 1) Design Defects, 2) Manufacturing Defects, and 3) Marketing Defects. Georgia’s product liability laws set forth rules on determining the legal responsibility of a person or entity when they cause another person or entity to suffer losses, which can include personal injury and death. These laws often overlap with principles of negligence and duties of care. 

In Georgia, strict liability often applies to companies that release defective products to the market, making it easier for victims to prove their cases in court. However, there are several defenses that commonly arise in motor vehicle product liability claims. 

Statute of limitations and Statute of repose

In Georgia, as with most personal injury claims, generally there is a two-year statute of limitations to file a products liability claim. See O.C.G.A § 9-3-33. However, Georgia’s discovery rule serves as an exception to the general rule in limited circumstances. Pursuant to the discovery rule, the statute of limitations does not run until the date the plaintiff discovers the injury and what caused it, or the date the injury and the cause should have been discovered. But the statute of repose bars product liability claims brought more than 10 years after the date the product was first sold or leased for use or consumption. See O.C.G.A § 51-11-11(b)(2). 

In other words, if a plaintiff is injured due to a poorly designed product and attempts to file suit within two years from the date of injury, but it is determined that the product was sold for consumer use 13 years prior, the statute of repose would bar the claim. This holds true no matter how dangerous the product nor how diligent the Plaintiff was in bringing the claim. 

It is important when reviewing products liability claims to be aware that the two-year statute of limitations is not the only time limit applicable to the claim.  

There are some exceptions to the statute of repose. The statute of repose does not apply to claims against products which cause disease or defects or claims against manufacturers for willful, reckless, or wanton disregard of life or property. See O.C.G.A § 51-11-11(c). Likewise, the statute of repose does not apply to failure to warn cases. 

The Georgia Supreme Court has held that failure to warn cases are “outside the ambit of the statute of repose, thereby precluding use of the statute to relieve manufacturers of their liability for failing to warn of a danger arising from the use of a product whenever that danger becomes known to the manufacturers.” Chrysler Corp. v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723, 727, 450 S.E.2d 208, 213 (1994). 

The knowledge required of a manufacturer that gives rise to a duty can be either actual knowledge or constructive knowledge. The manufacturer either knew or reasonably should have known of the particular danger. 

Comparative Negligence and Assumption of the Risk

In Georgia, by statute, a jury is entitled to apportion liability to any person or entity that was a party to a case and settled out or to any nonparty who is identified by giving notice within 120 days of trial. O.C.G.A.  § 51-12-33. If a jury assigns fault to a nonparty, then that portion of the verdict is written off, and each party is only responsible for the portion of the verdict that corresponds to the percentage of fault assigned to that party. O.C.G.A.  § 51-12-33. 

In defense, the manufacturer may claim that the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the accident or exacerbated the injury, or that the plaintiff knew about the risks associated with the product and voluntarily chose to use it despite those risks. For instance, in an auto products case where a defect is alleged, but the plaintiff was not wearing his or her seat belt at the time of the accident. Under Georgia’s new tort reform law, failure to wear a seat belt may be considered as evidence admissible on issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of the risk, or apportionment of fault. 

Product Misuse

Pursuant to this defense, the manufacturer may argue that the plaintiff used the product in a way that was not intended or recommended by the manufacturer, leading to the injury. The key to this defense is often that the manufacturer could not reasonably anticipate the way the product was used, leading to the injury. For example, using and modifying a car designed for the road as a racing vehicle, which in turn leads to an accident. 

Lack of Standing

This defense asserts that the plaintiff does not have the legal right to bring the claim, often due to a lack of direct injury or insufficient connection to the vehicle. For example, a passenger in a car involved in a crash caused by a defective part might not have standing to sue the manufacturer if they were not the owner or direct user of the car.

If you have a case with catastrophic injuries or death, product liability lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section are available to assist in evaluating the potential to bring a valid products liability claim. Our lawyers have experience dealing with and overcoming common defenses in product liability cases. 

AVIATION LITIGATION

Montana Jury Awards $22 Million Against Kaman Aerospace In Helicopter Crash Case

A Montana federal court jury has awarded $22 million to Central Copters Inc. in a lawsuit against Kaman Aerospace Corp. This case was over a helicopter crash that killed  Thomas Duffy, a veteran pilot, in 2020. The jury determined that the crash was caused by a manufacturing defect in the helicopter’s servo flaps, which are crucial for controlling the pitch of the rotor blades. This defect led to the fatal crash during a mission to drop water on the White River wildfire in Oregon’s Mount Hood National Forest.

Thomas Duffy, a highly skilled rescue pilot, was killed on August 24, 2020, while working under an exclusive contract with the U.S. Forest Service. The jury’s verdict included $6 million for the destroyed K-1200 helicopter (K-Max), $6 million for the lost value of other Kaman helicopters owned by Central Copters, and $10 million in lost past and future profits.

Prior to the trial, Kaman Aerospace reached an $8 million settlement with Duffy’s family, which resolved all wrongful death claims. This settlement allowed Central Copters to proceed as the sole plaintiff in the case. The jury rejected claims that the servo flaps were defectively designed, focusing instead on the manufacturing defect that led to the tragic accident.

Central Copters and the Duffy family are represented by Kellie Gaston Sironi of Gaston Law Firm, Matthew B. Hayhurst and Tyler M. Stockton of Boone Karlberg PC, and Calvin J. Stacey of Stacey & Funyak.

The case is Central Copters Inc. v. Kaman Aerospace Corp., case number 2:21-cv-00071, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

Source: Law360

Aviation Litigation At Beasley Allen

Our firm has handled aviation litigation for years. We have successfully handled a number of significant cases. Mike Andrews, a lawyer in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, heads up our Aviation Litigation Team.

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

An Update On Employment Litigation

“Employment Law” in the United States constitutes a collection of legal protections and obligations that govern the relationship between employers and employees. At their essence, the various laws that make up employment law are designed to ensure equal treatment, safe working conditions, and just compensation for employees. At the same time, employment laws establish legal responsibilities of employers in order to create a positive and productive workplace.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently released its statistical details for the 88,531 charges of workplace discrimination the agency received in the 2024 fiscal year.Since 2021, the number of charges filed with the EEOC has continued to increase, possibly due to more employees coming into the office or working a hybrid schedule instead of working remotely. These charges do not include any filed at the state level.

The 2024 top leading federal charges continue to include offenses in Retaliation, Disability, Race, and Sex. However, Retaliation charges decreased last year compared to 2023: Retaliation including “all statutes” found 46,047 charges in 2023 and 42,301 in 2024. Retaliation related only to Title VII also decreased, with 31,972 charges in 2023 and 29,207 charges in 2024. 

At Beasley Allen, our lawyers represent job applicants, employees and former employees with respect to all of the cases referenced above. However, as the EEOC’s findings indicate, the practical nature of workplace justice leads Beasley Allen to focus primarily on the five most prominent federal laws enforced by the EEOC, as well as two areas that fall outside of the EEOC’s enforcement powers. Those areas are:

• Retaliation -All Statutes & Laws;

• Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment;

• Race & National Origin Discrimination;

• Whistleblower Litigation;

• Age Discrimination;

• Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Violations; and

• Disability.

Retaliation

Federal law protects employees from retaliation when employees complain, either internally or to an outside agency like the EEOC, about workplace discrimination or harassment.  This protection applies even if the claim turns out to be unfounded, if the claim was made in good faith.

For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees who cooperate in EEOC investigations or serve as witnesses in EEOC investigations or litigation. Additionally, various federal and state laws protect individuals from other types of retaliatory conduct, such as “whistleblowers” who complain of unsafe working conditions, complain of, or report fraudulent activity committed against federal or state governments, or take legally protected FMLA leave. 

Also, some state laws prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for other reasons, such as filing a workers’ compensation claim. Sex, Race and National Origin Discrimination and Harassment: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination and harassment based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Whistleblower Litigation

Whistleblower litigation arises when fraud, waste, abuse, or other illegal conduct (such as kickbacks) is committed against the government, and these activities are reported to the government by individuals who have firsthand knowledge of the wrongful conduct. In general, whistleblower litigation falls into two categories 

• federal and/or state false claim act litigation; 

• governmental agency whistleblower programs. 

Under the federal False Claims Act (FCA), and many state equivalent statutes, whistleblowers can earn 15-30% of the monetary amounts recovered by the government. The FCA (and most state equivalent statutes) also safeguards whistleblowers from retaliation. For example, if a person experiences negative actions like being fired or demoted for reporting fraud, he or she can receive back pay, interest, and other compensation, or be reinstated to their prior position. 

Beyond the FCA, other agencies also have whistleblower programs. A few such programs are as follows:

• IRS Whistleblower Law;

• SEC Whistleblower Program;

• CFTC Whistleblower Program; and 

• Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act. 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

The ADEA prohibits employers with 20 or more employees from discriminating against applicants and employees 40 years of age and older on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. 

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA): The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The ADA is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities. The ADA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, unless such provision would cause an “undue hardship.” Under the ADA regulations, a reasonable accommodation is “any change in the work environment or in the way a job is performed that enables a person with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities,” according to the EEOC.

Supreme Court Ruling Guarantees Full Pay For Federal Workers On Military Leave

Last month, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal employees are entitled to differential pay, the difference between their civilian and active-duty salaries, while on military leave.   Nick Feliciano was an air traffic controller with the FAA and a Coast Guard reservist when he was called into active duty to support a national emergency in 2012. He remained on active duty until February 2017. During this time, however, the Department of Transportation refused to pay him differential pay, prompting Feliciano to file suit against the department. 

Feliciano relied on a federal law known as the “Differential Pay” statute. The statute mandates that servicemen and women receive differential pay when their active-duty orders are pursuant to certain enumerated statutes or “any other provision of law during a war or national emergency declared by the President or Congress.” In this case, Feliciano acknowledged that his orders were not pursuant to one of the enumerated statutes, but instead were pursuant to another “provision of law during a national emergency declared by the president”. As such, he contended, he was entitled to the differential pay. 

The Federal Circuit rejected his argument citing their decision in Adams v. Department of Homeland Security, 3 F. 4^th 1375 (2021), in which the court held that a reservist seeking differential pay during a national emergency, must show 1) that a national emergency was ongoing and 2) there was a substantive connection between the reservist service and the national emergency. The Federal Circuit and appellate court found that Feliciano could not demonstrate a substantive connection between his service and the national emergency, thus was not serving “during” a national emergency. 

The Supreme Court disagreed. The majority reasoned that the word “during” generally “means contemporaneous with,” and “does not generally imply a substantive connection.” The majority further reasoned that requiring a substantive connection, in this instance, was not contemplated by Congress when enacting the statute and would lead to questions not answered by Congress in the statute. 

This ruling has significant implications for federal employees who are called into active duty. It is clearly a victory in protecting the rights of those who faithfully serve in our military.  At Beasley Allen, we have a dedicated employment discrimination practice group committed to protecting the rights of 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.

Whistleblower Litigation

Whistleblower Win: $417 Million Secured In False Claims Act Case

Beasley Allen’s whistleblower team, led by Leon Hampton, has secured a $417 million judgment in a qui tam case presided over by U.S. District Judge Madeline Haikala in the Northern District of Alabama.

Nancy D’Anna and Valerie Paige Zeiger, acting as qui tam relators, sought damages in the case from Capstone Medical Resources, LLC, and Dr. Sharon Waltz. The defendants violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by submitting 29,511 false claims to the government, resulting in a loss of $2,116,538.42. When tripled, this loss amounted to $6,349,615.26.

Dr. Waltz operated Capstone Medical Resources in various locations in Alabama, with its primary office in Birmingham. Among other services, Dr. Waltz provided individual and group counseling sessions for at-risk youth. Many of the services billed to the Alabama Medicaid Agency by the defendants were never performed.

The FCA, a federal law designed to combat fraud against governmental programs, imposes severe penalties on violators, including civil penalties ranging from $13,946 to $27,894 per false claim, plus three times the amount of damages incurred by the government. In this case, the total statutory penalty for the false claims was calculated at $411,560,406, bringing the total damages to $417,910,021.26.

The judge awarded the relators, who played a pivotal role in uncovering and reporting the fraud, 25% of the total award, amounting to $104,477,503.30. Beasley Allen’s Leon Hampton, lead counsel for the “whistleblowers,” observed:

This judgment sends a clear message that those who misuse taxpayer dollars will be held accountable. Medicare funds exist to support the most vulnerable members of our society – not to enrich corporations through fraud. Exploiting these resources is not only unlawful, but also a betrayal of public trust.

DOJ Challenges Ruling On False Claims Act Whistleblower Provision

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has challenged a ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle that found the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act (FCA) to be unconstitutional. The DOJ argued that the Florida judge was incorrect in her October ruling, which stated that whistleblowers were unappointed members of the federal workforce. The DOJ clarified in response that Congress did not make whistleblowers part of the workforce but merely allowed them to claim a portion of the money recovered in FCA suits.

In her ruling, Judge Mizelle dismissed claims against several Medicare Advantage and provider organizations, asserting that the whistleblower clause violated the appointments clause of the Constitution. The DOJ countered by emphasizing that whistleblowers’ roles are temporary and limited, and that they do not act as agents of the United States but instead are private parties bringing private suits.

The DOJ’s brief highlighted that Congress did not intend to create a governmental office subject to the appointments clause when it passed the FCA. Instead, it allowed whistleblowers to recover money personally under the claims they brought. The DOJ also noted that qui tam provisions, which allow whistleblowers to sue on behalf of the government, have historical precedent and are consistent with the Constitution.

The Medicare providers involved in the case argued that the FCA allows private parties to influence the government’s legal positions, which they claim violates Article II of the Constitution. They contended that whistleblowers can initiate litigation on the government’s behalf without having suffered any personal injury.

The DOJ maintained that whistleblower cases cannot proceed without the government’s decision to take over, and that Congress has the authority to enable private parties to enforce federal statutes for public benefit. The ruling by Judge Mizelle threatens a key tool used by the DOJ, which in fiscal year 2023, resulted in $2.68 billion in recovered funds from qui tam suits.

Beasley Allen lawyers who handle FCA cases believe this ruling will not stand. It clearly would be a change in existing law. We will monitor this case. 

Zafirov, the whistleblower, is represented by Jennifer Verkamp, Jillian Estes, Anne Hartman, Jonathan Lischak and Chandra Napora of Morgan Verkamp LLC, by Marcella Auerbach and Kenneth Nolan of Nolan Auerbach & White LLP, by Havan Clark and Adam Rabin of Rabin Kammerer Johnson PA, and by Tejinder Singh of Sparacino PLLC.

The case is United States ex. rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC et al., case number 24-13581 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team 

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

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

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

Workplace Litigation

Beasley Allen’s Mobile Office Files On-The-Job Burn Injury Case

Lawyers in our Mobile office continue to focus on claims that involve workers injured while on the job.  One of our lawyers, Evan Allen, recently filed a case involving a worker who was severely burned while working at an industrial facility in Mobile County, Alabama.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has regulations to minimize the risk of workplace burn injuries.  

The OSHA regulations fall under the general duty clause of the OSH Act of 1970.  Employers have a responsibility to identify any hazards, including those which may burn employees.  They further have an obligation to implement appropriate safety measures to mitigate those hazards, as well as provide proper training and personal protective equipment (PPE) to those workers who may be exposed to the hazard.  

There are many potential causes of burn injuries in an industrial work environment.  Some of the most common sources are thermal, electrical, and chemical in nature.  All three of these potential burn sources require different preventative measures to ensure workers are not exposed to uncontrolled heat.  One of the most effective methods to prevent burn exposure is to ensure guards or physical barriers are designed and maintained such that an employee cannot contact a hot material.  

Failure to adequately guard against hazards can cause any number of injuries, including severe burns and even death.  Every on-the-job injury involving a serious injury or death must be examined on a case-by-case basis.  Just because guards are incorporated into a particular machine and PPE was used does not necessarily mean that the user or operator was adequately protected. 

The subject incident occurred while our employee was operating an excavator, and a co-employee dumped a load of hot material next to the machine he was operating.  Because guarding was not maintained on the excavator, the hot material showered onto our client, severely burning him.  

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Settlement Reached In Lawsuit Over Child’s Drowning At Emerald Isle Rental 

A wrongful death lawsuit involving the tragic drowning of a 2-year-old boy at a North Carolina vacation rental has been settled. The case involved the 2021 death of Maverick Winter, who drowned in a swimming pool at a rental property in Emerald Isle on the first day of his family’s vacation.

The lawsuit was brought by Maverick’s father, Ryan Winter, a Colorado resident, who alleged that the property management company—Bluewater Associates of Emerald Isle Inc.—and several other parties were responsible for providing a home with unsafe conditions for young children.  The suit alleged that the pool area was accessible through a gate with a “simple latch mechanism” that was not childproof, allowing the child to enter the pool area unsupervised.

The defendants in the case included the following:

• 4601 Ocean Drive LLC (property owner);

• Bluewater Associates of Emerald Isle Inc. (property management);

• Bluewater Builders of Emerald Isle Inc. (pool maintenance); and 

• Sheyenne Housand, doing business as SOBX Construction (contractor responsible for the pool gate),

The lawsuit, filed in 2023, accused these parties of negligence, asserting they knew or should have known the property posed a danger to small children. In a most interesting move, Bluewater Associates and the property owner filed third-party claims against members of the Winter family, suggesting they bore some responsibility for the child’s death.

However, the recent court filing indicates that all claims and counterclaims have now been resolved through a settlement. The terms of the agreement were not disclosed by the parties. The court was informed that it no longer needed to rule on the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment.

The resolution brings an end to a deeply emotional and complex case that highlighted concerns about child safety in vacation rental properties.

The Winter family is represented by H. Forest Horne Jr. and Huntington M. Willis of Martin & Jones PLLC.

The case is Winter v. Bluewater Associates of Emerald Isle Inc. et al., case number 4:23-cv-00101, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Source: Law360

SECURITIES LITIGATION

JPMorgan Chase Bank Can’t Avoid Claims It Aided $119 Million Ponzi Scam

In late April, a California federal judge trimmed a lawsuit brought by Silicon Sage Builders LLC’s court-appointed receiver, accusing JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase) of helping the now-defunct real estate developer carry out a massive $119 million Ponzi scheme. The court dismissed an unjust enrichment claim but allowed the bulk of the aiding-and-abetting claims in the case to survive.  

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim with prejudice, finding that it is unnecessarily duplicative. But the judge refused to throw out three remaining aiding and abetting counts against Chase, rejecting the bank’s arguments that the receiver cannot claim it has been harmed by its own entities’ fraudulent conduct. Judge Breyer also rejected Chase’s claim that the receiver lacks standing to sue the bank. 

Judge Breyer found that the complaint adequately alleged that “Chase employees went above and beyond ordinary banking services to help [Silicon Sage’s owner Sanjeev Acharya] circumvent holding periods for deposits and evade fraud detection procedures.” His order stated further: “These allegations sufficiently state that the Receivership Entities suffered a harm caused by Chase that is distinct and separate from the harm to Silicon Sage’s creditors and investors.” 

The ruling keeps alive in part a lawsuit that David Stapleton, a court-appointed receiver for dozens of corporate entities and funds, filed against the banking giant in August 2024, alleging that Chase Bank enabled a massive fraudulent scheme from 2016 through 2020 that left the entities insolvent.

The scheme abruptly ended in 2020 when Silicon Sage and Acharya were hit with a separate U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit. This led to a temporary restraining order in the case and the appointment of Stapleton as receiver. Acharya settled out of the SEC’s suit in 2021.

Stapleton claims in his suit that Chase “knew of and substantially assisted Acharya’s scheme,” and the bank should be responsible for corporate losses. According to court documents, the scam targeted South Asians in California and duped hundreds of investors into pouring $119 million. Acharya promised high returns even though it knew Silicon Sage was weighed down by costly and unsuccessful projects. 

By 2019, Silicon Sage had roughly $18 million in undisclosed liabilities to investors, and the receiver claims that Chase employees were “intimately and actively” involved with the activity in the accounts of the receivership entities while being in constant contact with Acharya and his affiliates. 

According to Stapleton, Chase consistently bypassed its internal deposit processing system, cleared deposits before the holding period, and circumvented other fraud procedures to accommodate rapid and unusual transactions involving the accounts. The suit alleges that one Chase business relationship manager went as far as to tip Acharya off about a “know your customer” review on one of the receivership entities.  Know your customer programs are one of the banking industry’s key anti-money laundering compliance measures. 

The four-count complaint asserts claims of aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting conversion, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, as well as unjust enrichment against the bank. The lawsuit seeks punitive damages plus interest and attorney fees.

But in December, the bank asked Judge Breyer to throw out the litigation for good, arguing that Stapleton lacks standing to sue, because as a receiver, he stands in the shoes of the alleged Ponzi scheme entities and therefore cannot claim injury from their fraudulent conduct. 

In support of its argument, the bank cited the so-called Wagoner rule, a rule stemming from the Second Circuit’s 1991 holding that instructs “when a bankrupt corporation has joined with a third party in defrauding its creditors, the trustee cannot recover against the third party for the damage to the creditors.” 

The bank also argued that the claims are time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations that began in February 2021 when Stapleton was appointed receiver and which expired at least six months before he sued. Additionally, Chase claimed the unjust enrichment claim cannot survive because the bank did not unjustly retain any benefit to the detriment of the alleged Ponzi entities. 

But Stapleton fired back, arguing that the bank’s dismissal bid and standing arguments conflate standing with the affirmative defense of in pari delicto, which means “in equal fault,” or unclean hands. Stapleton also argued that the claims are timely under California law. He claims that because Chase Bank’s role in the fraud scheme was allegedly not immediately apparent and required extensive investigation to uncover, it is a question of fact as to whether he could have acquired notice of Chase’s conduct sooner.

Judge Breyer decided the motion to dismiss without hearing oral arguments, and he ruled that the lawsuit sufficiently alleges aiding and abetting claims against the bank to proceed past the pleading stage. 

The judge noted that standing for a trustee differs from that of a receiver, and although there might be an adequate factual basis to impute Acharya’s fraudulent conduct to the receivership entities, whether that Acharya’s conduct should be imputed to Stapleton as a receiver is a separate issue. Judge Breyer further noted that the Ninth Circuit had expressly declined to follow the Wagoner rule in a 2008 decision, CarrAmerica Reality Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., when it refused to dismiss a receiver’s action for lack of standing. 

Judge Breyer additionally rejected the bank’s other standing arguments, noting that the bank primarily relies on case law precedent from the Seventh and Eleventh circuits, which are not binding on the California federal courts. 

The judge also said he was persuaded by Stapleton’s argument that, under the Ninth Circuit’s 1995 F.D.I.C v. O’Melveny & Myers ruling, courts don’t have to impute the inequitable conduct of a corporation in receivership to a receiver bringing claims on behalf of the corporation if the result would be inequitable. 

Judge Breyer additionally concluded that Stapleton’s claims against Chase are equitably tolled, and therefore not time-barred. And, although he dismissed the unjust enrichment allegations, the judge noted restitution is still available as part of the receiver’s aiding and abetting fraud and breach of duty claims. 

The case is David Stapleton v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, case number 3:24-cv-04947, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Our law firm has handled Ponzi scheme cases and is handling at least two such cases currently. James Eubank, a former Alabama Securities Commission lawyer, primarily handles these cases for our clients along with Section Head Dee Miles and several other lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section.

Securities Litigation At Beasley Allen

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

We had intended to provide an update on pending securities litigation in this issue, however, we have elected to have the update in the July issue. In the meantime, you can contact a member of our Securities Litigation Team concerning any securities cases or issues relating to securities. The team includes the following lawyers from our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section: James Eubank, who heads the team, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland and Paul Evans. Dee Miles, who heads the Section, also works with the team. 

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

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

The Future Of Antitrust Cases: Big Tech And Artificial Intelligence

Antitrust laws, which were designed to encourage fair competition and to prevent monopolistic practices, are experiencing an evolution as they relate to advances in technology. Because of this, we can expect new trends in the antitrust litigation world. Let’s take a look. 

First, there have been significant increases in the scrutiny of tech companies, like Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft, because of their dominance in various sectors related to advertising and cloud services, which have sparked concerns about their influence on competition and innovation. These companies have, and are likely to continue to be, targets of future antitrust litigation, in part due to their voracious appetites for obtaining consumer information and using it to gain strength in the marketplace. 

Another likely trend in the antitrust litigation world will concern artificial intelligence (AI). As the presence of AI inevitably grows in all aspects of our lives, especially in the marketplace, there will be an increased need to police how AI affects market competition. As this area continues to develop, it is likely that laws regulating artificial intelligence in the marketplace and antitrust laws will need to be developed in tandem to ensure that companies are not benefiting to the detriment of consumers’ bargaining power and their privacy.

Technology companies (Big Tech) and artificial intelligence programming are likely to be the next big trend in antitrust litigation. Beasley Allen’s antitrust litigation team is actively monitoring trends, developments and legal theories in an effort to identify new potential avenues for ensuring that the public benefits from fair competition and is not financially injured by monopolistic practices in the marketplace.

$271 Million Jury Verdict Against Amgen In Regeneron Antitrust Case

A federal jury in Delaware has ordered Amgen Inc. to pay at least $271.2 million in punitive damages to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals over claims of anticompetitive practices. The case centered on Amgen’s strategy of bundling its cholesterol drug Repatha with rebates for two unrelated, high-priced medications—Enbrel and Otezla—pressuring pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor Repatha over Regeneron’s competing drug, Praluent. This tactic allegedly forced PBMs to exclude Praluent to access the bundled rebates, despite Repatha being nearly twice the price. Regeneron contended this practice unfairly restricted competition and harmed patients by limiting access to a more affordable treatment.

The jury found Amgen liable on 10 of 11 counts, including violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as antitrust laws in New York and California. The only claim rejected was under California’s Unfair Practices Act. The verdict also included a finding of tortious interference with Regeneron’s prospective business relationships. Regeneron may seek treble damages on certain counts, which could significantly increase the total award beyond the initial $135.6 million in compensatory damages.

In a post-verdict statement, Regeneron emphasized that Amgen’s actions were not based on clinical merit or pricing but rather on leveraging its broader product portfolio to suppress competition. Amgen, in contrast, claimed that it had competed fairly and complied with antitrust laws. The case, originally filed in 2022, highlighted what Regeneron described as a coercive and unprecedented bundling strategy in the cholesterol-lowering drug market.

Regeneron is represented by Jonathan D. Polkes and Adam B. Banks of White & Case LLP, David E. Wilks and Scott B. Czerwonka of the Wilks Law Firm, Jessica L. Falk, Robert Niles-Weed and Rachel Williams of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and Eric S. Hochstadt of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amgen Inc., case number 1:22-cv-00697, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Source: Law360

Class Action Litigation

High Stakes: Class Action Lawsuit Filed After Online Casino Games Offered Under Sweepstakes Model 

Beasley Allen has filed a class action lawsuit against Sweepsteaks Limited, the operator of Stake.us, a widely used online casino gaming platform. Our lawyers represent Alabama residents who have incurred financial losses or forfeited valuable assets while gambling on the site.

The lawsuit alleges that Stake.us has been conducting illegal gambling operations in Alabama. The website offers over 200 games of chance, including slot games, scratch cards, poker, and other table games such as blackjack and roulette. Stake.us offers prizes, including cash-equivalent gift cards and cryptocurrency payouts, which can be converted to US currency.

The lawsuit also alleges that Stake.us engages in false, misleading, and deceptive practices by causing users to believe that the website is legal in Alabama. Not only is it accessible in Alabama, but the terms and conditions do not list Alabama as an excluded territory, further misleading users about the legality of the website.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Stake.us is illegal gambling in Alabama and an injunction to prevent Stake.us from operating within the state. They also seek recovery of the money or other things of value lost by the class members on Stake.us. 

Plaintiff Laura Hall, a resident of Phenix City, Alabama, lost money on Stake.us within the last six months. Plaintiff J.S., also from Phenix City, suffered losses due to his mother’s gambling on the website. Both plaintiffs were unaware of the illegal nature of Stake.us and believed it was a legitimate platform.

The lawsuit draws parallels between the rise of online gambling addiction and the opioid crisis, highlighting the significant social and financial costs associated with gambling addiction. The easy access to online gambling websites like Stake.us has led to a sharp increase in gambling addiction, including among minors and minorities.

Dee Miles, who is leading Beasley Allen’s efforts in this case, made this observation relating to Stake.us: 

Stake.us engages in the same unlawful and predatory practices that Alabama courts have shut down time and again. 

Mitch Williams, another Beasley Allen lawyer working on the case, added a comment relating to the lawsuit’s goal.  He stated:  

We look forward to giving Alabama citizens their day in court to stand up to Stake.us and recover their losses.

The plaintiffs in this case are represented by Dee Miles, Mitch Williams, Leon Hampton, and Paul Evans, all lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section.

The case is Hall et al. v. Sweepsteakes, Ltd., pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. 

Preliminary Approval Granted for $150 Million GM Engine Defect Settlement

After a long and hard-fought battle, a California federal judge has indicated preliminary approval for a $150 million settlement between General Motors (GM) and car buyers over an engine defect. Beasley Allen lawyers, along with three other good law firms, represent the plaintiff class members in this case. U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen expressed his approval of the settlement during a recent hearing in San Francisco. 

During the hearing, the judge sought details about the class members, claims process, and potential recovery for each car buyer. Judge Chen emphasized the importance of clearly stating the potential recovery amount, which could have been as high as $270 million, in the notice to class members.

In 2022, a jury found GM liable in the case for breaching warranties and violating consumer protection laws by selling cars with a hidden engine defect. Over $100 million in damages was awarded by the jury. Settlement talks began late last year, leading to the $150 million agreement announced in April. 

Judge Chen deemed the agreement “fair, adequate, and reasonable” and requested some changes to the notice. The judge also highlighted the high response rate expected due to the use of DMV records for current addresses.

The lawsuit, filed in 2016, claimed GM knowingly sold vehicles with defective engines. After the jury’s verdict, GM unsuccessfully sought to overturn it, arguing timeliness issues. Judge Chen found that GM had forfeited the chance to challenge post-trial claims due to its “all-or-nothing” trial strategy.

Settlement discussions began in December, and by March, we had made substantial progress, leading to the announced settlement. The settlement is expected to benefit approximately 34,000 class members in California, Idaho, and North Carolina, with an estimated $4,419 per member before deductions for fees and expenses.

The car buyers are represented by Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Rebecca Gilliland and Dylan Martin of Beasley Allen; along with Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren, Daniel R. Ferri and Mark Abramowitz of DiCello Levitt; Jennie Lee Anderson and Lori E. Andrus of Andrus Anderson LLP and Anthony J. Garcia of AG Law PA.

The case is Raul Siqueiros et al. v. General Motors LLC, case number 3:16-cv-07244, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Class Action Against AI Drugmaker Resumes After Failed Mediation

A Connecticut federal judge has lifted a pause on a proposed class action against BioXcel Therapeutics Inc., an AI-driven drugmaker, after mediation efforts in the case failed. The lawsuit, led by a Florida investor and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, accuses BioXcel of misleading investors about FDA compliance issues related to its dementia drug, BXCL501. The case will now move forward. 

The plaintiffs claim they were shocked to learn in June 2023 that trial data for the drug was compromised due to protocol violations, causing the stock to plummet and resulting in significant investor losses. They also allege that BioXcel delayed disclosing this information to allow CEO Vimal Mehta to profit from stock options.

Although a previous version of the complaint was dismissed in July 2024 for not proving intent to defraud, the plaintiffs have moved to amend the complaint with new allegations.

The putative class is represented by Adam M. Apton of Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Caitlin M. Moyna of Grant & Eisenhofer PA.

The case is Hills et al. v. BioXcel Therapeutics Inc. et al., case number 3:23-cv-00915, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Source: Law360

The Supreme Court Hears Argument On Lab Corp Class Certification Ruling

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 29 in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (LabCorp). The Ninth Circuit upheld the certification of a class whose members didn’t all directly experience harm from the complained-of conduct. While the defense bar has long been trying to get this issue before the Supreme Court in the hope the justices would adopt the rule that each class member must have individual Article III standing before a class can be certified, they may be out of luck. That’s because it appears the court may decline to rule on the issue on jurisdictional grounds. 

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

Labcorp appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which rejected its arguments that some blind individuals were not harmed because they didn’t know the kiosks existed or, if they did, they may not have wanted to use them.  The Ninth Circuit held that the relevant inquiry is not whether each person in the class suffered individual harm, but whether class members were injured by the same common course of conduct by the defendant. 

Relying on its seminal decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, the Ninth Circuit held that class certification is proper if it meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) even when the class may include more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members. 

In addition to the Ninth Circuit, the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits also give Rule 23(b)(3) its plain meaning – the rule nowhere imposes that all class members must suffer individual harm – which is consistent with the very purpose of Rule 23 to allow plaintiffs to redress particular wrongs in a representative capacity. To the extent there may be individual issues, for example, the question and quantum of harm, they can be addressed after class certification when, for example, class members may be required to submit claim forms with supporting documentation or affidavits. 

The D.C. and First Circuits do not require Article III standing for class members and allow a class to be certified if it contains more than a de minimis number of uninjured persons to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. The Second and Eighth Circuits do require that absent class members have suffered Article III injury, but in practice, district courts within the Second Circuit have certified classes where plaintiffs have not demonstrated that absent class members have Article III standing. 

  One of LabCorp’s main arguments before the Supreme Court demonstrates that the real concern underlying its position – and that of the entire defense bar – is that if plaintiffs aren’t required to establish that each absent class member suffered actual harm before a class is certified, there will be pressure on defendants to settle class actions. As Justice Gorsuch noted at oral argument, however, if they settle, defendants argue for the broadest relief possible in order to buy peace. 

Moreover, LabCorp’s position also ignores the reality that plaintiffs already face significant hurdles in prosecuting class claims, including high pleading standards and sometimes having to rebut the defendant’s factual arguments at the motion to dismiss stage. 

On class certification, in order to show by predominance of the evidence that liability and harm are class-wide issues, plaintiffs’ counsel routinely spend tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, on retaining industry experts and economists who develop damages models and otherwise resist defendants’ scorched earth litigation tactics. 

At the Supreme Court argument, the justices did not seem to be persuaded by LabCorp’s argument that absentee class members who are not before the court must have Article III standing, suggesting that the question, if reached, will be answered in the negative. While there was extensive discussion of class-wide harm in the procedural context of Rule 23(b)(3), certain justices were more concerned that the certified question was not properly before the court. 

After the court granted certification, the District Court issued an order changing the class definition. This means the order before the court is not the controlling order on the issue, and the Supreme Court may hold there is no case or controversy before the court.

Our class action team of lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section is closely monitoring this case and activity in other circuits dealing with this very important “standing” issue to ensure our class action clients are protected. We will keep our readers informed on this important case as it continues to develop.  

GM Settles $50 Million Class Action Over Defective Diesel Trucks

A Michigan federal court judge has given final approval to a $50 million settlement in a class action lawsuit against General Motors (GM) for selling diesel trucks with defective fuel pumps. The settlement, deemed fair by U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg, includes $15 million in attorney fees and covers customers who purchased 2011-2016 GMC and Chevrolet diesel trucks with specific engines.

The court had previously certified seven state classes, including California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, which cover individuals who bought the affected vehicles between March 2010 and the settlement notice date. GM initially appealed the certification of these subclasses but agreed to drop the appeal as part of the settlement.

Under the settlement agreement, truck owners who paid for repairs due to the defect may receive between $6,300 and $12,700, while those who sold their trucks are entitled to $400 to $800 for their overpayment. Additionally, current truck owners will receive future warranty coverage for repairs on the fuel pump and related components done at GM dealerships, with a 50% reimbursement for timely claims. Notices were sent to approximately 390,000 class members.

The class is represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Hilliard Law and The Miller Law Firm.

The case is Chapman et al. v. General Motors LLC, case number 2:19-cv-12333, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

Subaru Settles Windshield Defect Class Action

A New Jersey federal court judge has given final approval to a settlement between Subaru and nearly 2 million customers who accused the automaker of selling vehicles with windshields prone to cracking and other breakage. The settlement includes $7.25 million in attorney fees for class counsel in the case that has been ongoing for over five years.

U.S. District Judge Christine P. O’Hearn deemed the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, closing litigation. The suit involved windshields on several Subaru models, including Forester and Outback SUVs, which allegedly interfered with Subaru’s “EyeSight” driver assist system.

The settlement covers 2019-2022 models of Subaru’s Ascent and Forester, and 2020-2022 models of Legacy and Outback. Subaru agreed to cover 100% or more of out-of-pocket losses without admitting liability. Class members can receive up to 200% of repair costs with proof of repair and a photograph of the windshield crack.

Representative plaintiffs will receive $5,000 each as service awards. The settlement has been praised by observers for its innovative elements and recovery achieved for the class members.

The class is represented by Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, Russell D. Paul of Berger Montague PC and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP.

The case is Christine Powell et al. v. Subaru of America Inc. et al., case number 1:19-cv-19114, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

Capital One Agrees To $435 Million Settlement

Capital One has agreed to a $425 million settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the bank of misleading customers by marketing its 360 Savings accounts as high-interest products. The settlement covers anyone who held a 360 Savings account from September 2019 to the present. Key terms of the settlement agreement include:

• $300 million to compensate account holders for interest they would have earned if their accounts had matched the higher-yielding 360 Performance Savings rate;

• $125 million in additional payments to current 360 Savings account holders; and

• A commitment from Capital One to maintain an interest rate on 360 Savings accounts at least twice the national average, as calculated by the FDIC.

Capital One had created a separate, higher-yielding 360 Performance Savings account without informing existing customers, effectively shortchanging them on interest. A trial was scheduled for July 18, but all court dates were paused in April as the parties worked toward a settlement.

While the final details, including attorney fees and service awards, are still being negotiated, the settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Capital One. The case had previously survived several legal challenges, including a motion to dismiss fraud claims.

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

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

Source: Law360

BIPA Class Action Over Neutrogena Skin360 App Upheld

A proposed class action against a Kenvue subsidiary alleging it illegally stores facial data of people who use its skincare app was recently upheld by a New Jersey federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp denied Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.’s (JJCI) attempt to have dismissed a second amended complaint accusing the company of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by gathering and storing biometric information of those who used its online app and beauty product recommendation software called “Neutrogena Skin360,” without their informed consent or knowledge.

The complaint alleges that the Skin360 app is marketed as providing personalized skin assessments by conducting facial scans of users’ faces. The app can then diagnose various skin conditions and recommend treatments consisting of Neutrogena-branded products. 

JJCI argued that the claims fall under BIPA’s healthcare exemption for biometric information collected from patients in healthcare settings, citing multiple federal court cases dismissing similar claims under that exemption. 

Rejecting this argument, Judge Shipp followed “a more recent decision rendered last September by an Illinois appellate court, Marino v. Gunnar Optiks LLC, which held that someone trying on non-prescription sunglasses with an online try-on tool isn’t considered a patient in a healthcare setting.”

The statute defines patients as people “waiting for or receiving treatment or care from a medical professional…” In contrast, Skin360 compares consumers’ skin to its database of facial images using artificial intelligence, and then assesses the skin based on this comparison. Calling the app users patients under BIPA was a stretch, according to the court, especially since there are no medical professionals involved. 

These biometric cases continue to be a growing area of litigation. Beasley Allen lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are available to review and handle potential BIPA violations.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Additional Study Confirms Link Between Depo-Provera Use And Meningioma Tumors

A safety study published in February 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the Frey study) investigated the potential risks between the use of Depo-Provera and cerebral meningiomas.  The Frey study concluded, alongside prior studies, an alarming 3.55-fold increased risk of developing a meningioma tumor after taking Depo-Provera for more than one year.  The study further confirmed that longer use elevates that risk.  It should be noted that this study also corrected some of the pertinent limitations in the previous studies by evaluating a larger patient population and comparing it to the risks of another active hormonal contraceptive.  

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

Depo-Provera lawsuits were consolidated through a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in February 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, with Judge M. Casey Rogers presiding. 

Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith, Mary Cam Raybon, and Leighton Johnson are actively investigating cases involving Depo-Provera use for at least one (1) year where the injured later suffered a cerebral or spinal meningioma.  

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

EPA Revises PFAS Drinking Water Standards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced significant updates to its regulation of PFAS—commonly known as “forever chemicals”—in drinking water. While the agency will retain strict limits for two of the most hazardous PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS, it is extending the compliance deadline for public water systems from 2029 to 2031. 

Reportedly, this delay was intended to give utilities more time to implement necessary infrastructure changes and address logistical challenges. At the same time, the EPA plans to rescind enforceable limits for four other PFAS chemicals—PFHxS, PFNA, GenX (HFPO-DA), and PFBS—citing legal concerns and the need to ensure that regulatory decisions align with the Safe Drinking Water Act’s legal framework.

These changes are part of a broader revision of the Biden administration’s 2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, which initially set enforceable limits for six PFAS compounds. The EPA’s decision has created a divided response. Predictably, the responses were as follows: 

• Environmental advocacy groups sharply criticized the rollback, warning that it could prolong public exposure to harmful contaminants and undermine public health protections. 

• Water utility organizations welcomed the delay, saying that the original timeline was too aggressive and that more time is needed for pilot testing, planning, and construction of treatment systems.

The EPA has indicated that it will propose a revised rule in the fall of 2025 and aims to finalize it by spring 2026. In the meantime, the agency is launching a new initiative to support water systems with technical assistance and resources to manage PFAS contamination. 

There have been concerns over staffing and budget cuts under the Trump administration. EPA officials have stated that they are reallocating personnel to prioritize PFAS-related work, particularly within the Office of Water. The outcome of this regulatory shift will very likely have lasting implications for how the U.S. addresses PFAS pollution in drinking water nationwide. 

Beasley Allen lawyers will continue to monitor this matter and keep our readers updated. Needless to say, we are greatly concerned about anything that would make the current situation concerning drinking water safety worse. The public cannot afford a weakening of regulation. Stay tuned!

Source: Law360

An Update On The Monsanto Litigation

     There has been a lot of activity in the ongoing litigation against Bayer involving the product Roundup.  You may recall that Bayer acquired the herbicide as a product when it merged with Monsanto in 2018. Reportedly, Bayer is now considering dropping the product.

Bayer is facing 67,000 lawsuits claiming that Roundup, its glyphosate-based product, causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In November 2023, a jury in Missouri awarded $1.6 billion to three plaintiffs for their cancer claims. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages while maintaining actual damages totaling $61.1 million. Bayer’s total liability now exceeds $700 million. 

The company is appealing a separate 2024 case where a Missouri court awarded $1.25 million to John Durnell, after the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court was set to consider whether to take up the case by June 9. 

Thus far, Bayer has paid over $10 billion in settlements and has set aside an additional $6 billion to cover its exposure in the courts. In 2024, Roundup generated $2.8 billion in revenue for Bayer. 

Additionally, Bayer is facing a class action lawsuit from shareholders regarding its $68 billion acquisition of Monsanto in 2018, claiming the company misled investors about the risks associated with the purchase. 

Central to the litigation and legislative efforts is the labeling of glyphosate, with court opinions highlighting Monsanto’s long-standing awareness of the potential cancer risks associated with glyphosate. Judge Cynthia Martin, in her opinion, emphasized the company’s failure to warn consumers while continuing to sell Roundup, indicating a reckless disregard for public health.

We will do a further update on this litigation in the July issue. Stay tuned!

Source: Missouri Independent

An Update On The 3M Litigation

We will take a look in this issue at the ongoing litigation involving 3M Company and its PFAS contamination. There have been a number of significant developments recently. There have been numerous settlements in several states, including New Jersey and Minnesota.  

New Jersey finalized its groundbreaking settlement with 3M Company, securing up to $450 million to address widespread contamination from PFAS. This agreement, the largest of its kind in the state’s history, resolves multiple lawsuits related to environmental damage at the Chambers Works and Parlin sites, as well as broader statewide PFAS pollution, including from firefighting foam products. The funds will be disbursed over 25 years, with initial payments between 2026 and 2034 totaling up to $325 million, and an additional $125 million allocated through 2050. 

These payments will support natural resource restoration, PFAS abatement projects, and legal costs. Notably, 3M avoids a scheduled 2025 trial and is released from further liability related to its PFAS activities in New Jersey, though it must continue cleanup efforts at its former facilities. 

This latest settlement is separate from the national $10 billion settlement agreement. It also does not affect private lawsuits. As PFAS litigation intensifies, insurers are increasingly excluding related claims, and 3M has committed to ending PFAS production by the end of 2025.

We will do a more complete update on the 3M litigation in the July issue.

Source: Insurance Journal

Paraquat Litigation Update

The Paraquat multidistrict litigation (MDL) has grown to include 6,036 cases currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, under Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel.

Settlement Developments

Significant progress has been made toward finalizing a comprehensive settlement in the federal MDL. On May 13, 2025, lead counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants notified Judge Rosenstengel that a settlement agreement had been reached. The court issued a 30-day stay on all case-specific discovery deadlines, allowing the parties time to finalize the agreement.

While the formal terms are still being finalized, the forthcoming settlement agreement is expected to outline the criteria for eligibility and the factors that will determine compensation values. The court has ordered the parties to provide an update no later than June 11, 2025. Litigation continues, and currently, no agreement has been reached in state court proceedings in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The MDL settlement could increase the likelihood of a broader resolution in state courts.

Looking Ahead

With the June 11th deadline approaching, we anticipate a significant increase in MDL case filings. Beasley Allen continues to accept new Paraquat cases, but the window for pursuing legal action may be closing soon.

If you or a loved one has been exposed to Paraquat and diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease or another related condition, you can contact our office to evaluate your potential claim and preserve your legal rights before the opportunity passes. There is a definite need for prompt action on your part. 

CONSUMER CORNER

Alabama Attorney General Files Lawsuit Against TikTok For Targeting Teens

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed a lawsuit against TikTok Inc. and its parent company, ByteDance Inc., for exploiting children, addicting them to harmful content, and deceiving parents about the safety of its platform. Lawyers from Beasley Allen, along with the Tuscaloosa, AL firm Prince Glover Hayes, are representing the state in this litigation. The lawsuit, filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court, seeks to hold TikTok accountable for contributing to a mental health crisis among Alabama’s youth.

When announcing the filing of this very important lawsuit, Attorney General Marshall stated: 

Today, we join concerned parents across our state to stand up for Alabama’s children. TikTok preys on young people, feeding them dangerous and damaging content while lying to parents about how safe the app really is. This platform was designed to addict kids and put profits ahead of the mental health of an entire generation,” Marshall said. “TikTok’s so-called ‘safety features’ are a joke. They are nothing more than a marketing ploy to trick parents into trusting a product that TikTok knows full well is dangerous. Alabama families deserve the truth, and we will make sure they get it.

The state’s lawsuit reveals that TikTok’s algorithm is designed to capture users’ attention, fostering compulsive behavior similar to a gambling machine. This maximizes youth exposure to the app, generating billions in revenue annually. Despite TikTok’s claims of being safe for teens and preteens, the algorithm often exposes children to harmful content, including alcohol, drugs, sexual content, and eating disorders.

Additionally, TikTok’s safety features like “Kids Mode” and “Restricted Mode” are ineffective and easily bypassed, leaving children vulnerable. ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, actually provides stronger safeguards for children in China, such as limiting screen time and restricting live content access.

The State of Alabama is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act to compel TikTok to stop making deceptive, misleading, false, and unfair statements about the content on its app, the effectiveness of its Restricted Mode, and the TikTok Community Guidelines. 

Additionally, the state is pursuing compensatory and punitive damages for the harms caused by TikTok’s negligence and wantonness. The lawsuit aims to impose civil penalties and secure injunctive relief to ensure TikTok discontinues its misleading practices regarding youth safety.

Rhon Jones, who heads up our firm’s Toxic Torts Section, expressed our firm’s commitment to protecting Alabama’s children. He observed: 

At Beasley Allen, we are dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of Alabama’s youth. TikTok’s deceptive practices have caused significant harm, and we are honored to stand with Attorney General Marshall in this fight to ensure a safer environment for our children.

Attorney General Steve Marshall, Katherine Robertson, Brad Chynoweth, Michael Dean and Lindsay Barton of the Alabama Office of the Attorney General represent the state. Rhon Jones, Matt Griffith, Jeff Price, Elliot Bienenfeld, Connor Chase and Will Jones of Beasley Allen; and Josh Hayes, Matt Glover and Blake Williams of Prince Glover Hayes are additional lawyers for the state.

Global Trade In Counterfeit And Pirated Goods Reaches $467 Billion In 2021

Counterfeit and pirated goods have become a major problem in our country. It has been reported that in 2021, counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for $467 billion in global trade, representing 2.3% of global imports. This marks a slight increase from pre-pandemic levels, with the European Union (EU) alone seeing $117 billion worth of illicit goods, or 4.7% of its imports. Illicit trade impacts nearly 50 product categories, with clothing, footwear, and leather goods being the most affected, making up 62% of seized items. 

The report highlights a concerning rise in counterfeit automotive parts and pharmaceuticals due to their high safety risks.

China and Hong Kong are the primary sources of these goods, with Middle Eastern and Latin American countries also contributing. Counterfeiters are increasingly using international waterways and online platforms to evade detection, complicating enforcement efforts.

The size of seized shipments has decreased, with smaller parcels becoming more common, posing challenges for enforcement agencies. The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) emphasizes the need for new tools and increased cooperation to combat this issue effectively.

Source: Law360

Four States Allege CVS Overcharged Medicaid By Not Disclosing Prescription Discounts

A lawsuit has been filed by the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, and Oklahoma. CVS failed to inform state Medicaid programs about discounts offered to cash-paying customers, violating regulations that ensure government insurance programs pay the lowest possible price for drugs. The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court, alleges CVS did not disclose these discounts, leading to higher costs for Medicaid.

CVS disputes the allegations, alleging that it has always been transparent with Medicaid programs about its pricing. The company says the states involved have never required pharmacies to report third-party discount card prices as usual and customary prices.

CVS started its own prescription discount program in 2008 and later used ScriptSave, a third-party company, to issue discount cards. CVS says it believed ScriptSave was not obligated to report usual and customary pricing to Medicaid. After acquiring Target’s pharmacies, CVS moved participants to the ScriptSave program.

The states claim this resulted in taxpayers paying more for prescriptions for Medicaid recipients. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell emphasized that pharmacies must offer the same discounts to Medicaid programs to avoid taxpayers bearing the cost of inaccurate price reporting.

The case is United States of America et al. v. CVS Health Corporation et al., case number 1:16-cv-02359, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Source: Law360

Georgia Enacts Law Limiting Pesticide Manufacturer Liability

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has signed Senate Bill 144 into law, a measure that will shield pesticide manufacturers from certain liability lawsuits starting January 1, 2026. The law states that if a pesticide’s health warnings meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, they will be considered legally sufficient. This means manufacturers cannot be sued for failing to warn about risks beyond what the EPA requires. That’s truly a scary thought!

Fortunately, the law does not protect companies that the EPA finds to have knowingly hidden or misrepresented safety information.

The legislation follows a historic $2.1 billion verdict against Bayer AG, the parent company of Roundup maker Monsanto, in a Georgia case where a man claimed the weed killer caused his cancer. While the new law won’t affect that verdict, Bayer has announced plans to appeal.

Supporters, including many Republican lawmakers and agricultural groups, argue the law protects farmers from losing access to essential products and shields companies from excessive litigation. Critics, including consumer advocates and small farmers, warn that it weakens public health protections and reduces corporate accountability.

Source: Law360

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Works For Clients

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

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

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

The Mass Torts Section

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

The Toxic Torts Section

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

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section

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

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section

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

The Administrative Section

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

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

Lawyers have been able to focus on cases within their Sections. This has allowed them to achieve favorable results. There are major differences in each Section, both as to the law and industry requirements. 

The efficiency and teamwork generated by the sections concept has resulted in our firm being recognized as one of the best litigation firms in the country. This has been for the benefit of the folks we represented. 

The Latest Look At Case Activity At Beasley Allen

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

Practices

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

Cases 

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

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

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

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

Resources to Help Your Practice

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

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

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

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

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter

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

Recalls Update

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

The Jere Beasley Report

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

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Writing an Effective Evidence Preservation Letter

Suzanne Clark, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section, is supplying some recommendations that I believe will help trial lawyers prepare for trials. Susan will discuss “evidence preservation letters,” a subject that all too often is ignored or minimized by lawyers. Let’s see what Suzanne, a tremendously talented lawyer, has for us. 

When drafting an evidence preservation letter, it is crucial to tailor it to the specifics of your case rather than relying on a generic template. This ensures that the letter addresses the unique aspects of your client’s situation and the evidence you anticipate the other side possesses. Here are some key elements and considerations for crafting a compelling preservation letter:

These are some Key Elements of an Evidence Preservation Letter

1. Introduction and Identification of Parties:
   • Clearly state who you represent and the potential claim. 
2. Purpose of the Letter:
   • Explicitly state the purpose of the letter, which is to inform the recipient of the potential claim and their duty to preserve relevant evidence. For example, “The purpose of this correspondence is to inform you that it is likely a claim will be prosecuted against [company].”
3. Unambiguous Terms Triggering Duty to Preserve:
   • Use clear and unambiguous language to ensure the recipient understands their duty to preserve evidence arises immediately, not just when a lawsuit is filed. For example, “Please be advised that your duty to preserve evidence arises now, given the potential claim, and not merely upon the filing of a lawsuit. To ensure that all relevant evidence is preserved, we request that you take immediate steps to preserve the following information related to [Name and/or subject matter]:”
4. Identification of Relevant Information:
   • Provide sufficient details to identify the subject matter to be preserved, including potential parties, custodians, and enough facts to allow the recipient to identify potentially relevant information. Providing a laundry list of sources (emails, text messages, etc.) is unnecessary, as the producing party should know their own sources. 
5. Specific Request for Preservation:
   • Clearly request the preservation of all communications, content, and history related to the subject matter. For example, “Please take steps to preserve the communications, content, and history relating to the [subject matter] in anticipation of a complaint being filed and discovery requests being served.”
6. Invitation to confer:
   • Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require further information.

Why Tailoring Your Letter is Important

Using a template for preservation letters can be tempting, but it is essential to customize each letter to the specifics of your case. This approach ensures that the letter addresses the unique aspects of your client’s situation and the evidence you anticipate the other side possesses. By doing so, you increase the likelihood that the necessary evidence will be preserved and reduce the risk of spoliation. You also ensure that the burden of preservation is on the potential opposing party and that they cannot later claim their duty had not been triggered until a later date.

Conclusion

An effective evidence preservation letter is a critical tool in litigation, particularly in mass torts cases involving electronic discovery. By clearly identifying the parties, stating the purpose of the letter, using unambiguous terms, and specifying the relevant information to be preserved, you can ensure that the other side understands their duty to preserve evidence and takes the necessary steps to do so. Tailoring each letter to the specifics of your case will further enhance its effectiveness and help protect your client’s interests.

Sources: Letter Sample, Jonny Law

These recommendations will be helpful to trial lawyers. 

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Presley Blanks

Presley Blanks, who joined Beasley Allen just over five years ago, works as a Legal Secretary in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section. Presley, in her role, is instrumental in file management, client communication, and staying on top of pending tasks, and assisting with other projects as needed.  

Outside of work, Presley says she is “a devoted dog mom” to three charming companions: Kobe, a mix breed; Oso, a playful Rottweiler; and Caesar, a gentle giant Great Dane. Presley shares that these furry friends keep her on her toes and bring joy and energy to her daily routine. 

Presley says she enjoys spending quality moments with her family in her spare time, often shopping with her mom and aunt. She also loves exploring new culinary delights, always searching for the best meal recommendations. Cooking is another passion, where Presley enjoys creating delicious dishes. 

What stands out most for Presley at Beasley Allen is the opportunity for continuous learning. Thriving in a fast-paced firm environment, she appreciates the daily challenges that encourage her to ask questions and engage with her peers. This eagerness to learn enhances her skills and contributes to the team’s overall effectiveness. We are thankful to have Presley with us!

Ben Locklar

Ben Locklar’s legal journey began at Beasley Allen in 2005. He has dedicated himself to representing clients in defective product cases. Known for his compassion and unwavering commitment to helping others, Ben finds the greatest fulfillment in positively impacting his clients’ lives. 

Ben shares that his journey into law was sparked during an 8th-grade history class with a mock trial, leading him to pursue a business and personnel management degree while working as a police officer. He later graduated from Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law in 1989. Ben’s dedication to helping others drives his passion for practicing law, where he emphasizes the importance of each individual’s story and circumstance. 

Ben shares a strong family bond outside his professional life with his wife, Lisa Matthews Locklar, and their three daughters—Katie, Sarah Beth, and Greyson. They are proud grandparents to Micah and Lainey, and they enjoy spending time together as a family. Katie, a veterinarian, is married to Kyle McMaster; Sarah Beth, a graduate of the University of South Alabama, resides in New York managing a business; and Greyson, a University of Alabama alumna, works in the health benefits sector and is married to Nick Farmer. 

Ben and Lisa actively participate in their community through Centerpoint Fellowship Church and cherish their time together at their home on Lake Martin, where they enjoy boating and fishing.  Ben says he finds solace on Lake Martin, where fishing is a therapeutic escape. He cherishes the moments spent with his family and makes it a priority to create lasting memories together. 

With a unique background in small and large legal firms, Ben appreciates Beasley Allen’s commitment to its clients. He values the firm’s strong sense of community and believes every client’s case deserves personalized attention, regardless of scale. Ben is a highly talented lawyer committed to seeking justice for his clients, and we are fortunate to have him with us!

Leigh O’Dell

Leigh O’Dell is a distinguished and multi-talented lawyer in the Mass Torts Section at Beasley Allen. She leads our litigation in cases involving talcum powder products, with a strong focus on women’s health issues like transvaginal mesh and Gardasil. 

Initially, Leigh’s goal was to pursue corporate and tax law, inspired by her father’s small business and discussions about business strategies. After earning an accounting degree from Auburn University, she enrolled in law school at the University of Alabama. 

Tragically, during her third year, her father Billy O’Dell passed away, prompting her to return home to support her family. This led her to a federal clerkship with U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent, which provided transformative insights into litigation, Leigh says. 

Following her clerkship, Leigh joined Beasley Allen, where she wholeheartedly advocates for those in need. Her career path shifted from business law to one aligned with her sense of justice. Today, Leigh says she finds fulfillment in holding wrongdoers accountable and supporting injured individuals. Leigh shares that she finds immense satisfaction in building client relationships and collaborating with experts in various fields to strengthen their cases.

Originally from Prattville, Alabama, Leigh cherishes spending time with her large family, enjoys playing tennis, and is an ardent supporter of Auburn Tiger sports.  Despite the demands of her practice, Leigh treasures her time with her extensive family, which includes her mother, Beverly Jacobs O’Dell Malone, her stepfather, Tom Malone, three sisters, two brothers, and numerous nieces, nephews, and great-nieces and nephews. 

Family gatherings are vibrant occasions filled with love and laughter, reinforcing her belief in the importance of connections. In addition to her legal and family commitments, Leigh actively serves on various ministry boards, using her skills and resources to give back to her community. Her love for Auburn Tiger sports adds a touch of fun to her busy life, making the phrase “War Eagle!” a joyful part of her daily existence. 

When asked about what sets Beasley Allen apart as a firm, Leigh remarks: 

Beasley Allen is a truly unique firm for many reasons, but above all, our unwavering commitment to the priorities of faith, family, and firm—always in that order—sets us apart. This foundational principle shapes every aspect of our practice. Without it, the qualities that define our firm would not be as pronounced—the integrity to do what is right, even when it is challenging or unpopular, the dedication to hard work, the humility to embrace the often unseen daily disciplines essential to serving our clients with excellence, the ability to maintain the warmth and accessibility of a “small-town law firm” while successfully practicing on a national scale, and the perspective to navigate both our successes and setbacks with wisdom.

We are blessed to have Leigh at Beasley Allen. She is a tremendously talented lawyer who is totally dedicated to the Rule of Law, justice for all, and her clients. Her work in the Johnson & Johnson litigation is a classic example of being a trial lawyer who cares deeply for her clients and works tirelessly for them. 

Whitney Oakley

With an impressive 11 years at Beasley Allen, Whitney Oakley is a valued employee of the firm. As a Paralegal in the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, she supports James Eubank, Tyner Helms, and Demet Basar, lawyers in the Section. Whitney’s role encompasses a range of responsibilities, including managing case files, coordinating calendars, and acting as a liaison between clients and legal professionals. She is also involved in various document review projects and the preparation and editing of legal documents under the direction of the section’s lawyers. 

Outside of work, Whitney values her time with family. She is the second of four sisters and maintains close relationships with her siblings. Now, a married mother of two—Finn, aged three, and Isla Pearl, just three months old—her family life is lively and fulfilling. They share their home with Shadow, an affectionate Doberman Pinscher who adds joy to their daily routine. With cousins and grandparents nearby, Whitney and her family seize every opportunity for playdates and celebrations. In her spare time, Whitney dedicates herself to her garden, nurturing a variety of fruits and vegetables alongside caring for her children and husband. 

What Whitney cherishes most about her role at Beasley Allen is the opportunity to build connections with clients. She understands that many clients come to the firm during stressful times, and she prides herself on establishing trust and encouraging open communication. Her empathetic approach allows her to recognize and address clients’ needs, ultimately providing them with a positive experience throughout the legal process. 

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

Ashley Rivers

Ashley Rivers has been a valued part of the Beasley Allen team for the past nine years.  She works as a Legal Secretary in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, reporting to Melissa Prickett, a lawyer who is also the Director of the Section.  Ashley provides essential support to both Melissa and the Social Media lawyers. Her responsibilities include communicating with referring attorneys, managing medical retrieval portals, compiling weekly reports, and processing invoices and credit card statements. 

Ashley describes that her life is bustling with activity outside of work, thanks to her husband and their five children. They celebrate the recent graduation of their oldest, Dakota, from the University of Alabama School of Law and eagerly anticipate his upcoming bar exam. The family also includes two high schoolers, Jace, a senior, and Kelsey, a junior, along with their energetic 9-year-old, Judson, and 10-year-old, Kendall, who keep the family on their toes with sports and lively personalities. Rounding out the family are their three pets: Peter, a Chihuahua; Cooper, a Golden Doodle; and Oscar, the family cat.  In her spare time, she enjoys a variety of hobbies, including camping, watching WWE, and anything related to sports. 

Ashley says what she appreciates most about Beasley Allen is the incredible team dynamic. “The people!” she exclaims. She believes that all staff members and lawyers go above and beyond for clients and one another, creating a work environment that feels more like family. With such strong leadership and inspiring role models, Ashley says she feels fortunate to be part of the Beasley Allen team. Ashley is another hard-working employee who is dedicated to the firm and the clients she serves. 

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

One of our staff employees and two of the lawyers being featured in this issue share their favorite Bible verse with us.

Presley Blanks

Presley Blanks gives us one of her favorite verses. She says it is how she learned to pray for herself and others. It’s also how she approaches life, serving as a reminder that she can accomplish anything with prayer and perseverance.

Ask, and what you are asking for will be given to you. Look, and what you are looking for you will find. Knock, and the door you are knocking on will be opened to you. Matthew 7:7

Ben Locklar

Ben Locklar shares three of his favorite verses with us.

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

Christian brothers, keep your minds thinking about whatever is true, whatever is respected, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever can be loved, and whatever is well thought of. If there is anything good and worth giving thanks for, think about these things. Philippians 4:8

Who can keep us away from the love of Christ? Can trouble or problems? Can suffering wrong from others or having no food? Can it be because of no clothes or because of danger or war? 36 The Holy Writings say, “Because of belonging to Jesus, we are in danger of being killed all day long. We are thought of as sheep that are ready to be killed.” 37 But we have power over all these things through Jesus Who loves us so much. 38 For I know that nothing can keep us from the love of God. Death cannot! Life cannot! Angels cannot! Leaders cannot! Any other power cannot! Hard things now or in the future cannot! 39 The world above or the world below cannot! Any other living thing cannot keep us away from the love of God which is ours through Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:35, 37-39

Leigh O’Dell

Leigh O’Dell offers several of her favorite verses.

For by His loving-favor you have been saved from the punishment of sin through faith. It is not by anything you have done. It is a gift of God. 9 It is not given to you because you worked for it. If you could work for it, you would be proud. 10 We are His work. He has made us to belong to Christ Jesus so we can work for Him. He planned that we should do this. Ephesians 2:8-10

God can give you all you need. He will give you more than enough. You will have everything you need for yourselves. And you will have enough left over to give when there is a need. 2 Corinthians 9:8

Give all your cares to the Lord and He will give you strength. He will never let those who are right with Him be shaken. Psalm 55:22

Closing Observations

Remarks By Chief Justice Sarah Stewart

Alabama Chief Justice Sarah Stewart spoke recently at the Mobile County Bar Association. Her presentation is one that all lawyers need to read. The Chief Justice has agreed for us to include her talk in this issue. Before becoming a judge, Sarah Stewart was a tremendously talented lawyer. She served with distinction as a Circuit Judge. Now she is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is also a very good person. 

The Presentation

“Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and shall be enjoyed by everyone since the day of birth.”

“The rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall be directly operative. They determine the essence, meaning and implementation of laws…and shall be ensured by the administration of justice”.

“All people shall be equal before the law and court.”

“The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, religion, and also of other circumstances.” 

“All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be banned.”

“Citizens have freedom of speech, publication, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.”

These are all excerpts of rights listed in the constitutions of countries around the world.  Want to know which countries?

Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, and Yemen. 

Some of the strongest constitutional language protecting the people’s rights belongs to the worst, most tyrannical countries. We all know how hollow those enumerated rights ring in those countries. What is the difference between those countries and the United States of America? The difference is a fiercely independent judiciary and the rule of law. 

The independence of the judiciary is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. When judges are free to apply the law without fear, favor, or intimidation, justice prevails. Impartial and courageous judging is not only the backbone of justice, but essential to preserving the public’s trust in our courts and the rule of law that separates our democracy from tyranny. 

What I would like to focus on today is the role that our profession has in this fundamental concept.

We all know, simply by virtue of being in this room, that to be the best lawyer and judge we can be, we must work hard not only through law school but also every day of our careers. No one in this room got here by passing the bar and then resting on our laurels. 

Getting the law right and understanding justice demands the best from us. Simply put, being a lawyer or a judge the right way is hard. 

All of us in the legal field have been grappling with immense change over the past few years. The world is still feeling the aftershocks of a pandemic, legal systems are adapting to new technologies, political polarization is testing the bounds of civil discourse, and the independence of our judicial system and the rule of law are undoubtedly under great stress.  

By being here today, by being active in our profession, and being invested in being a lawyer or judge the right way, you have not chosen to look away from all of these challenges—you have chosen to lean in. That speaks volumes about your courage.

Why am I focused on being a lawyer or judge the right way, working hard, and having courage? 

If you take anything away from my remarks today, I hope it will be this thought: we don’t just interpret the law—our profession shapes the world. Ask yourself, what will your role be?

The law is not just about rules, precedent, and words. Fundamentally, at its core, the law is about people. Behind every statute, every precedent, every verdict is a human life—someone seeking justice, someone looking for hope, someone needing to be heard. 

And now, more than ever, the world needs lawyers and judges who lead not with ego, but with empathy. Lawyers and judges who know that the loudest voice in the room is not always the most just. 

Lawyers and judges who understand that justice is not a given—it is earned, upheld, and fought for. And that will require being a lawyer or a judge the right way, working hard, and having courage.

As you sit here today, your greatest asset is not your ability to argue, but your ability to listen. Your power does not come from persuasion alone, but is grounded in principle. 

And your success is not measured solely by the cases you win or the orders and opinions you issue. Your success is fully measured by the integrity you maintain when no one is watching.

The future of the law will be shaped by many forces—artificial intelligence, globalization, politics, and evolving human rights. But its soul? The soul of the law will be shaped by you. 

Because of this, you must be the advocates for the voiceless, the architects of fairer policies, the defenders of liberty when it is threatened. 

You must be the greatest critics of the legal system when it falls short, but you must also be the drivers and leaders of change and growth. 

I challenge you that when you walk out these doors today, you do so with a sense of real purpose. Use your legal knowledge not to build walls, but to build bridges. Use your skill not just to win, but to mend. Use your voice not to echo, but to lead.

I want to leave you with this last point as to why justice demands your courage, your integrity, your leadership and your understanding that ultimately the law is about the people. 

Throughout the history of organized society, judges and the judicial branch of government have been charged with keeping the rule of law alive, applying it equally to rich and poor, powerful and weak. To keep the rule of law alive, justice requires courage, fairness, and equality. 

The judicial branch in America is, by design, the weakest. We don’t have the power to make the laws like the legislature, and we certainly don’t have the power of the purse. We don’t have enforcement power like the executive branch- they have the prisons, the district attorneys, the police. They have the power of the sword and shield. 

So, what power does the judicial branch have?

All we have is the trust, the belief and the confidence of the people. People must believe that the outcomes in the courtrooms are achieved fairly, justly and under the rule of law. Without that belief, without that trust, justice will simply fail. 

So how you treat the people you represent, the people on the other side of your case or the table, the people in your courtroom, or the people in all aspects of your life; how you treat them and what they observe about you – the core and face of the law – will determine whether they believe in justice and trust in the law. Everything we have and that we continue to work for depends on the people’s trust, belief, and confidence. Do your part in earning, upholding, and fighting for the people’s trust in justice. 

We are the future of justice. We are the critics, the menders, the listeners, and the fighters.  We bear the weight of that responsibility for the entirety of our professional careers.

I hope we never forget that responsibility, but more importantly, I hope we never forget the privilege of being the guardians of the people’s trust in justice.

The Honorable Sarah Stewart

Chief Justice

Alabama Supreme Court

As I stated at the beginning, this is a message all lawyers need to read and understand the message conveyed. The Chief Justice makes it very clear that the obligation of every lawyer who is a litigator, plaintiff or defense, is to help make the justice system work. The Rule of Law must be respected and upheld by all Alabama citizens, and that definitely includes all lawyers. The role of a judge is to make sure that true justice is available for all who come before the courts. I agree with the Chief Justice – we are “the guardians of the people’s trust in justice.”

Governor Ivey Appoints Judge Bill Lewis to Serve on Supreme Court of Alabama

Governor Kay Ivey has appointed Judge Bill Lewis to serve on the Supreme Court of Alabama. This comes following an announcement from Justice Jay Mitchell that he was resigning from his position on the state’s top court. When making this appointment, Governor Ivey stated:

Judge Bill Lewis continues demonstrating justice and fairness under the law, as well as a willingness to serve the people of Alabama. His decades of experience will serve the Supreme Court of Alabama well, and I am confident he is the best choice.

Governor Ivey had appointed Lewis to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals in February 2024. Prior to that, he served as Circuit Court Judge for the 19^th Judicial Circuit in Elmore County where he was the Circuit’s presiding judge. Before becoming a judge, Lewis was the senior partner of the Lewis Law Firm, a firm he started in 2006. Lewis served as assistant district attorney for the 19^th Judicial Circuit before going into private practice. He has also served as a criminal defense attorney in criminal cases and practiced civil and family law.

Judge Lewis received his undergraduate degrees in political science and economics from the University of the South and his law degree from the Cumberland School of Law.

Judge Lewis’ appointment was effective immediately. This appointment was widely recognized as being a very good one. Governor Ivey is to be commended for placing Bill Lewis on the High Court. 

Alabama Legislative Action

The Regular Session Ends

The Alabama Legislature completed its regular session on May 14. Most observers say this was a highly productive session.  I will mention several of the key bills that passed and became law. There was other legislation, some bad for the state of Alabama, that didn’t pass, and that’s also important. We will take a look at some of the significant legislation that did become law. 

The PBM Legislation

The PBM legislation that passed under the leadership of Senator Billy Beasley is very important and was badly needed. It became a reality after years of hard work by Billy. We wrote about this matter extensively in the last issue. It was a victory for consumers and saved many independent pharmacies from going under. PBMs are a prime example of something created originally to do good, but wound up doing some very bad things. We are all a team!

The Police Officers Bill

A bill to expand legal immunity for police officers in Alabama was passed during the final moments of the session. Sponsored by Rep. Rex Reynolds, a former police chief, the bill aimed to revise the state’s laws on police immunity from criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits. It was approved by the Senate with a vote of 25-6 and subsequently passed by the House 73-28. The bill was signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey. Most observers believe the changes were necessary. 

Bills To Tighten Regulations On Vapes And THC Products

Two major pieces of legislation aimed at tightening regulations on electronic cigarettes and consumable THC products were approved by the Legislature and have been signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey. House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter emphasized the importance of protecting Alabama youth, stating that “the measures taken with these bills achieve that goal.”

The bills, House Bill 8 (HB8) and House Bill 445 (HB445), target vapes and THC products respectively, raising the minimum age for use to 21 and limiting their access and availability.

Rep. Barbara Drummond sponsored HB8, which bans self-service or vending machine sales of vape products in areas accessible to minors and restricts sales to vape stores and specialty shops, with exceptions for U.S.-made products and FDA-approved items. The Senate modified the bill to increase penalties for retailers and reduce penalties for minors caught using vape products. While concerns were raised about the impact on convenience stores and gas stations, the House concurred with the Senate changes.

HB445, sponsored by Rep. Andy Whitt, prohibits the sale of consumable THC products to those under 21, sets strict THC limits, imposes a 10% tax on sales, and limits availability to specialty shops. Retailers must acquire a license to sell THC products, with penalties for violations including civil and criminal penalties up to $20,000 and a Class C felony charge. The Senate raised the THC cap and allowed sales in grocery stores with dedicated areas. Despite concerns about limiting accessibility, the House passed the bill with significant support.

Both of these bills will help to protect Alabama’s youth from the rampant use of these products. The legislators are to be commended for taking this needed action. 

Source: Alabama Daily News

Gov. Ivey Signs Bill For Alabama Farmers Federation Health Plan

Governor Kay Ivey has signed the bill allowing the Alabama Farmers Federation to offer a health care plan for its members, exempt from typical health insurance regulations. The bill, introduced by Rep. David Faulkner, received strong bipartisan support, passing the House 98-1 and the Senate 30-2. The plan aims to provide an affordable alternative for farmers and self-employed Federation members who struggle with health insurance costs. However, those with employer-sponsored plans are ineligible unless the plan costs less than 9% of their household income.

Opposition came from health care groups, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, who argued the plan could deny coverage to individuals with expensive preexisting conditions, unlike ACA-compliant insurance. The bill includes consumer protections, such as a minimum benefit cap of $2 million per enrollee and prohibiting loss of coverage or premium increases due to illness.

Alabama joins eleven other states with similar farm bureau health insurance plans. Alabama Farmers Federation President Jimmy Parnell expressed gratitude to Gov. Ivey, highlighting the plan’s potential to address rising health care costs for farmers and small business owners.

MONTHLY REMINDERS

The following reminders from key individuals are for all of us at Beasley Allen. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. In addition to all of us at Beasley Allen, we send these reminders to all who get the Report each month. All persons in a leadership role, including those persons in government at every level, will benefit by reading the quotes and applying the lessons learned in their daily lives. 

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

2 Chronicles 7:14

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

Edmund Burke

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

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

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

Martin Luther King, Jr. 

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

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

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

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

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

Bryan Stevenson, 2019

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

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

PARTING WORDS

We live in a confused and mixed-up world. There is far too much activity and messaging that is being motivated by what is referred to as the “hate factor.” All too many decisions in the political world are made that involve that hate factor. The hate is aimed at some person, group, or entity. The hate can also be aimed at some specific activity. 

Leaders at every level of government must work to eliminate the hate factor. Government at all levels must truly serve the people. 

I suggest that all of us, including our leaders, should follow the mandate found in 2 Chronicles 7:14. If we as a nation would do that, the United States of America would be healed and all of its people would be blessed beyond measure. Let’s all pray for our leaders, our nation and its people.

God Bless America!