Lawyers Liaison LLC

This additional payout would raise the overall settlement amount to more than $9 billion, to be paid out over 25 years. The company will need at least 75% claimant votes in favor for the plan to qualify for bankruptcy court approval. The healthcare giant may have a subsidiary declare bankruptcy to finalize the proposed settlement before the end of this month, Reuters reported, citing one of the people aware of the development. #NewClaimantProducer #TortLeadGeneration #GetNewClients  #KnowYourClients #WithPersonalityProfiling #FindMIAClients

Bad News For Pfizer. Depo-Provera is a female contraceptive injection (often called the "birth control shot") that has been in use for many years. In March 2024, a significant new scientific study published in the British Medical Journal found a clear link between the use of Depo-Provera and the development of a specific type of brain tumor called a meningioma. This new evidence is expected to lead to a wave of Depo-Provera lawsuits across the country against Pfizer the manufacture. Depo-Provera lawsuits are possible for anyone who used this drug at least twice and was later diagnosed with a brain tumor. A meningioma is a type of brain tumor that develops in the protective membranes covering the brain. Meningiomas are the most common type of brain tumor, accounting for 40% of all reported brain tumors. Grade I: A completely non-cancerous meningioma that grows very slowly. These account for 8 out of 10 meningioma cases. Grade II: A grade II meningioma is still non-cancerous but grows much more rapidly and is more difficult to treat. Grade III: These meningioma tumors are cancerous (malignant). They grow very fast and aggressively. These account for less than 2% of cases. Even when a meningioma is non-cancerous, it can still have very serious health consequences. If the tumor continues to grow, it can begin to damage surrounding nerves and other areas in the brain. #GetNewClients #TortLeadGeneration #LeadProduction #NewClaimantProducer #KnowYourClients #WithPersonalityProfiling #FindMissingClients

Paragard IUD news defendants push back on adding Teva to MDL The plaintiffs have moved to amend their complaint to include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. as a defendant. Teva opposes this motion, arguing lack of diligence. However, the defendants' position is weakened by the absence of substantial prejudice from adding another Teva-related defendant and no applicable statute of limitations argument. In complex litigation, plaintiffs often gain clarity on which parties to name as defendants through discovery. New documents have revealed Teva Ltd.'s involvement in the MDL's central issues, highlighting the importance of the discovery phase. This situation demonstrates how complex litigation can evolve as information becomes available, particularly in cases involving large corporations. The court must balance allowing plaintiffs to pursue claims against all potentially responsible parties with ensuring fairness to defendants. Factors like timing, reasons for delay, and impact on litigation progress will likely influence the court's decision. #LeadGeneration #NewClaimantGenerator #KnowYourClaimants  #WithPersonalityProfiling #FindMissingClients

In the ongoing Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) against Monsanto, a significant legal development has occurred. Monsanto has filed a motion to exclude the testimony of seven key experts representing the plaintiffs. This group of experts represents a range of specialized knowledge relevant to the case. Monsanto's motion suggests that the company believes these experts' testimonies may not meet legal admissibility standards or could potentially influence the court's decision unfavorably for them. In response, the plaintiffs submitted their formal objections to these motions on Friday. This exchange of legal motions and responses is a standard part of the pre-trial process, as both parties attempt to shape the evidence that will be presented during the trial. The outcome of this motion is crucial, as expert testimony often plays a pivotal role in complex litigation, especially in cases involving scientific or technical issues. If successful, Monsanto's motion could significantly impact the strength of the plaintiffs' case. This development underscores the importance of expert testimony in legal proceedings and highlights the strategic maneuvering that occurs in high-stakes litigation. The court's decision on this motion will be a key factor in determining the course of the trial and potentially its outcome. #LeadGeneration #GetNewClaimants #KnowYourClients #NewandCurrent #WithPersonalityProfiling #FindMissingClients  

In the ongoing Ozempic litigation, recent developments have highlighted key procedural and scientific aspects of the case. The defendants have successfully petitioned Judge Marston for early discovery on general causation issues, as outlined in their letter addressing the "cross-cutting" issues order. This move suggests a strategy to expedite rulings on these matters without full discovery. In response, plaintiffs' attorneys have submitted their own letter to the judge, advocating for a more comprehensive approach. They argue against premature decisions on general causation, emphasizing the need for thorough discovery. Central to their argument is the Bradford Hill criteria, a set of guidelines expected to play a significant role throughout the Ozempic litigation. Plaintiffs stress the importance of extensive evidence examination, arguing that this is crucial for addressing specific allegations and providing a comprehensive factual and scientific context for general causation evaluation. They caution against limiting discovery to predefined categories, suggesting that this approach might overlook relevant data and potentially compromise the causation analysis. In their communication with the court, plaintiffs' attorneys are advocating for full pre-trial discovery. They urge the court to resist any attempts to streamline or expedite the process, warning that such measures could result in incomplete or misleading analysis. This stance underscores the complex nature of the case and the plaintiffs' desire for a thorough examination of all pertinent evidence.

The joint status report submitted by Plaintiffs and Defendants for the August 29, 2024, conference outlines several key developments in the ongoing legal proceedings. The report covers the following important points: 1. Pending Motions: Multiple motions are currently under review, including Defendants' motions to dismiss and strike class allegations, Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss non-cancer cases, and a motion against L'Oréal regarding discovery order compliance. 2. New Defendants: The report provides an update on cases involving newly added defendants, noting that some motions to dismiss are pending while other cases have been settled. 3. Discovery Issues: Ongoing discovery challenges with various defendants are highlighted, including the previously discussed Revlon motion and the need for court-imposed deadlines for Strength of Nature and Namasté Laboratories . 4. NIH Subpoena: Revlon's subpoena to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is in progress, with ongoing discussions regarding data handling procedures. 5. Electronic Discovery: Efforts to finalize search terms and methodologies for electronic document production continue, with unresolved disputes involving L'Oréal. 6. Plaintiff Fact Sheets: The process of collecting plaintiff medical records and addressing non-compliant plaintiffs is ongoing. Plaintiffs are strongly encouraged to complete their fact sheets promptly to avoid potential risks to their claims. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of the legal proceedings, highlighting key areas of progress, ongoing challenges, and important deadlines for all parties involved. #TortLeadGeneration #GetNewClients #FindMissingClients #KnowYourClaimants #WithPersonalityProfiling

The recent mesothelioma lawsuit involving Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and American International Industries (AII) has resulted in a significant verdict. The jury found both companies negligent, determining that their products were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's condition. Here are the key points of the case: 1. Liability: J&J and AII were both found negligent. 2. Fraudulent misrepresentation: J&J was cleared of this charge, while AII was found culpable. 3. Conduct assessment: The jury deemed AII's actions as "willful, wanton, or reckless." 4. Damages awarded: a. Economic and other damages to the plaintiff: Over $23 million b. Loss of consortium for the plaintiff's spouse: Over $9.6 million c. Punitive damages: $30 million against J&J and $760,000 against AII 5. Total compensation: $63.4 million awarded to the plaintiff and his spouse The case raises questions about J&J's legal strategy, as their decision not to settle all cases appears to have resulted in a substantial financial penalty. This verdict may have implications for future mesothelioma lawsuits against these and other companies in similar industries. #TortLeadGeneration #GetNewClients #FindMissingClients #KnowYourClaimants #UsingPersonalityProfiling #BuildTrust

Case Management Order Number 17, issued by Judge Marston, outlines the expense-sharing protocols for plaintiff lawyers in the Ozempic lawsuit. In MDLs of this scale, it's common for dozens of law firms to work together for several years, often investing millions of dollars before any plaintiff's case reaches trial. The order addresses how these expenses will be managed and potentially reimbursed. The order stipulates that if a settlement is reached, the group of lawyers will receive a percentage of each settlement. Specifically, 9% of any gross monetary recovery—whether from settlement, judgment, or other forms of monetary relief—will be allocated to the GLP-1 Fee Fund. This fund is designed to compensate the Ozempic attorneys for their legal services that benefit all plaintiffs involved in the MDL. This system ensures a fair distribution of costs and potential compensation among the various law firms involved in this complex litigation. It also provides a structure for managing the significant financial investments required in such large-scale legal proceedings. #TortLeadGeneration #GetNewClients #KnowYourClaimants  #UsePersonalityProfiling

The Massachusetts Legislature has passed a significant bill prohibiting the use of PFAS chemicals in firefighter protective gear, marking a crucial step in safeguarding firefighters from carcinogenic exposure. Governor Maura Healey is anticipated to sign the bill into law imminently. Rich MacKinnon, President of the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts (PFFM), described the achievement as a collective effort by the organization. He noted that during discussions at the Statehouse, legislators consistently mentioned receiving input from firefighters regarding the urgency of eliminating PFAS from their equipment. MacKinnon emphasized the PFFM's ongoing commitment to ensuring firefighters' safety from cancer risks. This legislative action represents a significant development in occupational health and safety for firefighters in Massachusetts. #TortLeadGeneration #GetNewClients  #KnowYourClaimants #UsingPersonalityProfiling #FindMissingClients

In April, the judge overseeing the Paraquat Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) dismissed all cases initially chosen for the first round of bellwether test trials. However, progress has resumed as of yesterday when the MDL judge selected 10 new Paraquat cases to serve as bellwether test cases. Over the coming months, the parties will engage in case-specific fact discovery for these 10 cases, preparing them for possible jury trials. It's worth noting that there is a strong likelihood of a global settlement being reached in the Paraquat litigation before any bellwether trials occur. Nevertheless, this recent development applies pressure on the defendants, potentially expediting the settlement process. This selection of new bellwether cases is a crucial step in moving the Paraquat MDL forward. #TortLeadGeneration #KnowYourClaimants #ReclaimMissingClients #UsingPersonalityProfiling