Overview of Baron & Budd’s Representation of Public Entity Clients

Baron & Budd, P.C. (Baron & Budd) has represented Public Entity Clients in complex litigation for two decades. This representation has increased in recent years as Public Entities (including states, municipalities, school systems, and utility providers) face increased threats to health and safety along with the pressure of shrinking resources to protect these critical interests. In addition, Public Entities are now expected – more than ever – to safeguard public funds and prevent waste, fraud and unnecessary spending – all the while responding to constituent concerns.

The attorneys at Baron & Budd understand the competing demands facing Public Entities today and have abundant experience successfully prosecuting complex cases on behalf of Public Entities. Through litigation, we have recovered the costs of extraordinarily important remediation involving contamination of natural resources, public property and municipal drinking water. We have recaptured public funds. We have held accountable pharmaceutical companies and credit card marketers who deceive the public for financial gain. In one case, our representation of seven states against pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, we achieved the largest settlement of a pharmaceutical case to date for several of the involved states. Overall our work has garnered significant recognition for our firm, resulting in Baron & Budd’s nomination to or winning of many prestigious national awards.

Baron & Budd’s experienced attorneys have established themselves as leaders, not only succeeding in obtaining exceptional results for Public Entity clients in courtrooms, but also succeeding in providing trusted advice to the legal community nationwide. As a result, our attorneys are often called upon to participate in panels, forums, steering committees and legal seminars – to share insights from a unique practice perspective. This nationwide peer recognition reflects the outstanding results that Baron & Budd has achieved for both individual and Public Entity clients and our contributions to the legal community at large.

Baron & Budd understands the delicate position that Public Entities are in, making difficult decisions for their communities. We are here to help every step of the way.

Baron & Budd’s Unique Relationship with Public Entity Clients

While Baron & Budd provides exemplary service to all clients, Public Entities receive special attention from our firm. Typically our attorneys operate alongside, and at the direction of, the Public Entity’s local or in-house counsel. This close relationship provides us with valuable insider perspective and allows our attorneys to deliver the type of signature, personalized service that is key to remarkable results.

An important benefit of this unique and close relationship is that it minimizes the burden of litigation on the employees and staff of Public Entities. Bolstered by our superior team members and resources, we are able to perform most of the day-to-day litigation tasks, thus helping you stay focused on your important work, free from the demands of litigation. It is our intention to do whatever is required – from the mundane gathering and copying of documents to the complex work of full briefings, oral arguments, and trial. Our focus is fully managing the litigation so that you, the Public Entity, can carry on the critical business of representing your community without distractions.

Even when a case is resolved, whether through settlement, ADR, or trial, Baron & Budd’s support remains steadfast. We are there to provide assistance in writing press releases, advising you in regard to community notification and directing you to the right vehicles for disbursement of any funds obtained from a positive result in the case.

Baron & Budd’s representation of Public Entities includes the following varied and complex issues facing communities today:

Environmental Representation

  • Water
    • Drinking Water Contamination
    • BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
  • Other Types of Contamination
    • PCBs in Schools
Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Fraud

  • Credit Card Fraud
Pharmaceutical Litigation

  • Avandia
  • GranuFlo /NaturaLyte

Environmental Representation

Baron & Budd attorneys have been representing Public Entities in environmental contamination cases for decades.

Drinking Water Contamination

Led by pioneer “Water Lawyer” Scott Summy, our Environmental Group has zealously pursued companies whose chemicals invade the nation’s drinking water supplies. On behalf of dozens of Public Entities, we have recovered the costs of removing those contaminants from water before it is served to the public.

Historically, our water contamination litigation has concerned several different chemical contaminants, all linked by their unwelcome presence in drinking water supplies and their manufacturers’ knowledge that such contamination would inevitably result from normal, intended uses. These chemicals include: methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive; perchloroethylene (PCE), a dry-cleaning solvent; atrazine, a popular agricultural herbicide; trichloropropane (TCP), a pesticide; trichloroethylene (TCE), a multipurpose industrial solvent; and other toxic chemical contaminants.

MTBE

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, is one of the most common water contaminants in the country. Baron & Budd attorneys in the Environmental Litigation Group have represented hundreds of water providers, helping them recover the costs of removing MTBE from their water supplies. Our results are extraordinary: Baron & Budd recovered over $800 million from the companies that knew MTBE would harm the environment and still flagrantly placed the safety of various communities at risk. Baron & Budd’s proven track record in MTBE litigation makes us one of the most sought-after groups in the country for water contamination cases.

Our MTBE cases hold particular significance for Public Entity clients, whether a state, township or water supplier. In order to maintain proper community water standards, public water suppliers incur great costs, which are then borne by ratepayers or taxpayers. Baron & Budd’s Environmental Group has successfully assisted many communities by shifting these costs to the responsible parties.

As far back as 2001, Shareholders Scott Summy and Celeste Evangelesti received the “Attorney of the Year Award” for Environmental Law from California for their work on MTBE water contamination litigation.

As the attorneys in our Environmental Group became more and more involved in MTBE litigation, we took on many more cases. In 2003, a settlement was negotiated on behalf of the City of Santa Monica requiring the Defendants to pay for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a filtration system until the water contaminant was removed.

Our group’s most prestigious case began in 2004, when we filed suit on behalf of 150 water providers and well owners in 17 states. These cases were consolidated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of New York. The Court appointed Shareholder Scott Summy lead counsel for all Plaintiffs. The Defendants in the case included all of the major oil companies. This case took several years to litigate, but we eventually reached a spectacular settlement. In addition to the monetary award, the oil companies agreed to pay a portion of treatment costs for any of the water providers’ wells that became contaminated over the next thirty years. So, not only did the Baron & Budd attorneys solve the immediate containment and clean-up of the water providers’ wells, but we also made sure that the oil companies were held accountable for potential future contamination.

A second group of cases representing twenty (20) water providers settled in 2011 for $20 million.

Today, the Environmental Litigation Group continues to represent Public Entities in MTBE cases across the country, seeking to clean up the nation’s water supply, holding those responsible for the contamination, rather than taxpayers, accountable for the costs. In a recent case filed on behalf of the State of Vermont, our Environmental Litigation Group is seeking to recover funds spent by the State for past and current clean-up actions, the costs of remediating MTBE from public water supplies, the costs of restoring natural resources, and the cost of testing and treating private wells located in rural areas not served by public water supplies. This will ensure that all communities in the State enjoy clean drinking water and will protect the resource for future generations.

PCE

Baron & Budd’s Environmental Litigation Group is very active in PCE litigation. In addition to its use as a “cleaning” solvent, PCE is commonly used in dry cleaning businesses. Given its widespread use and poor disposal practices, PCE has become a prevalent contaminant in the ground water. Even a small amount of PCE can contaminate groundwater and drinking water, resulting in risks to the public’s health.

The Environmental Litigation Group currently represents several water suppliers against the manufacturers of PCE, PCE-containing products, and dry cleaning equipment. Our Public Entity clients include: California Water Services; The City of Sunnyvale, CA; and Suffolk County Water Authority, NY.

Atrazine

Atrazine is one of the most widely used herbicides (weed killers) in the United States. Farmers apply it to crops extensively throughout the Midwest. After application, atrazine easily runs off of sprayed areas and contaminates streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water, including those used for drinking water. Removing it from water supplies requires use of expensive carbon filtration systems. In 2004, based on concerns about persistent groundwater contamination, the European Union banned the sale of Atrazine. But its manufacturer, Syngenta AG, continued to market and sell Atrazine to farmers in the United States without warning them or alerting them to the fact that Atrazine could enter and contaminate a community’s drinking water, and the possible health risks that could occur as a result.

In 2004, the Environmental Litigation Group filed suit on behalf of Holiday Shores Sanitary District, a water provider in Illinois. This water provider’s water supply was repeatedly contaminated each year as Atrazine was applied to nearby farms. Baron & Budd filed suit against Syngenta AG to recover the district’s costs for testing and filtration. The lawsuit alleged that Syngenta had known about the danger of water contamination but sold atrazine without warning or proper instructions. Through the litigation, we sought to shift the costs of filtration from the affected communities to the company that knew its product would cause contamination.

While the Holiday Shores lawsuit was pending, Baron & Budd filed suit on behalf of a group of several additional water providers dealing with the problem of atrazine contamination. The case grew into a national class action which would benefit hundreds of water providers across the United States. Shareholder Scott Summy was appointed Class Counsel along with attorney Steve Tillery of Korein Tillery in St. Louis Missouri. This litigation went on for several years before the parties agreed to a settlement in the amount of $105 million to be allocated among 1,085 water providers.

The settlement allowed public water providers to remove atrazine from their water supplies without raising rates or taxes. Baron & Budd’s Environmental Litigation Group was extremely pleased with the result, knowing that their tenacity, hard work, and diligence made such a huge difference in so many communities.

TCP

1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) is a man-made industrial solvent, typically used as a cleaning or degreasing agent. From the 1940s through the 1980s, however, Dow Chemical Company and Shell Oil added TCP to fumigants used to control underground worm infestations in agricultural crops. Over the years, farmers and gardeners used this chemical extensively, resulting in groundwater contamination in many communities.

TCP is of particular concern because exposure has been associated with cancer and other serious health effects.

Baron & Budd has represented several communities whose water supplies have been contaminated with TCP. On their behalf, we sued Dow and Shell, alleging that these companies knew both the health risks associated with TCP and that, when used as intended, TCP would leach into groundwater but failed to remove the harmful TCP from its products due to increased manufacturing costs.

The Environmental Litigation Group currently represents or has represented approximately ten public water providers with claims against the manufacturers of TCP-containing products. Five cases have settled for a total of over $50 million. Litigation is still ongoing with additional water providers in the State of California.

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill began with a tragic explosion and blowout on April 20, 2010, in the Gulf of Mexico. It is considered the largest accidental oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. This tragedy affacted communities, businesses, and individuals all along the Gulf Coast. The Environmental Litigation Group at Baron & Budd has represented or continues to represent public entities, businesses, and individuals affected by this disastrous oil spill.

Shareholder Scott Summy was given a leadership role in the ongoing litigation arising from the Spill. He was appointed by the Court to the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee (PSC) as well as the four-member Executive Committee (EC). These committees guide the litigation on behalf of all the plaintiffs. The PSC has responsibilities concerning discovery, hearings, meetings, and trial, as well as communication with the population of plaintiffs and claimants who allege injury as a result of the Spill.

In 2012, the PSC negotiated an open-ended settlement with BP for property damage, economic loss claims, and medical claims for businesses and individuals. The settlement, administered by the Deepwater Horizon Court-Supervised Settlement Program, has awarded compensation to thousands of qualifying individuals and businesses.

Baron & Budd has represented many businesses and individuals who filed claims for losses through the Settlement Program. The firm also represents others, like Public Entities that were excluded from the Settlement, and others who elected to “opt out” of the settlement and proceed with litigation against BP. The Environmental Litigation Group continues to represent these entities, businesses, and individuals seeking recovery as a result of the BP Horizon spill.

Other Types of Contamination

PCBs in Schools

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a family of industrial compounds that were used in a variety of building and construction materials including caulks, sealants, paints, electrical transformers, and fluorescent lighting ballasts. In the United States, PCBs were manufactured solely by Monsanto Company, and they were used extensively in the construction of schools and other commercial buildings beginning in the early 1930s.

Monsanto continued to produce PCBs despite the company’s internal knowledge of health and environmental risks associated with their manufacture and use. Their sale and use went unchecked until Congress banned their production and sale in the late 1970s based on mounting concern about global PCB contamination and potentially harmful exposure.

As a result of decades of sale, however, PCB compounds remain in place and are commonly found today in caulking materials and fluorescent lighting ballasts in schools and commercial buildings.

Baron & Budd was one of the first firms to file a lawsuit to recover the costs of removing these substances from school buildings. The Environmental Litigation Group currently represents school districts in communities that want to hold Monsanto accountable for its sale of a dangerous product and to remove the products – not at taxpayers’ expense, but at Monsanto’s.

Unfortunately, many communities are unaware of the existence of PCBs or the harm that can be caused by exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only recently started to provide school districts with information regarding the presence of PCBs and preventing exposure. But because the EPA does not yet require school districts to test their buildings for PCBs, communities may not realize that students, teachers, and visitors are being exposed. To help protect our nation’s schools, Baron & Budd has offered free testing to any school in America. The results can help a community decide how to clean up the school without passing that expense on to taxpayers, so that all students and teachers are safe within the learning environment. For some, this may include filing a lawsuit against Monsanto.

Baron & Budd’s Environmental Litigation Group recently filed lawsuits against Monsanto and its corporate successors on behalf of the Town of Westport and the Westport Community Schools in Massachusetts. Baron & Budd is seeking a solution to hold the company accountable for the removal and clean-up of the PCB contaminated material. Our mission with these new cases is to provide students and teachers with a healthy and safe learning environment.

Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Fraud

Credit Card Fraud

Baron & Budd attorneys are also well versed in representing public entities in cases involving deceptive trade practices outside of the pharmaceutical realm. The most recent successful result garnered $27 million on behalf of three states regarding deceptive credit card practices. Baron & Budd attorneys continue to represent the states of Mississippi and Hawaii in ligation against credit card companies for their deceptive use of credit card payment protection plans.

Credit card payment protection plans are advertised to consumers as a way to protect themselves in the event of unemployment, disability, or other unforeseen life events. Usually, the consumer is contacted by the credit card company via a telephone call during which the company’s representative asks if the consumer would like to sign up for a payment protection plan. Unfortunately, these phone calls can be confusing and misleading, especially to an unsophisticated consumer. The elderly and unemployed are often targets of these calls. The credit card company makes the plan so deceptively appealing over the phone that at times consumers agree to the plan, pay a monthly fee for the plan, but are not exactly sure how the plan operates and thus never receive any benefits. In other instances, consumers who have not agreed to the plan are nevertheless charged for the plan by their credit card company, which obviously already has the necessary credit card information to process the charge. These payment protection plans offer no real benefits to consumers, but are a money-making machine for the credit card companies. With the continued representation of Public Entities in deceptive trade practices concerning credit card payment protection plans, Baron & Budd attorneys, along with the states they represent, are sending a message that these types of deceptive trade practices will not be tolerated.

During the course of litigating these cases, Baron & Budd’s attorneys have successfully navigated various legal jurisdictional hurdles before the trial and appellate courts, including victories in the Fifth and Ninth Circuits. The significant appellate victories are as follows:

Hood ex rel. Miss. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 737 F.3d 78 (5th Cir. 2013).
State of Hawaii v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 761 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2014).

Following protracted and contentious negotiations, Baron & Budd has reached settlements for a total amount of $27 million to date for its public entity clients with various defendants, including:

  • Bank of America Corporation
  • Barclays Bank Delaware
  • Capital One Bank (USA) N.A.
  • Chase Bank USA, N.A.
  • Citibank
  • Discover Financial Services, Inc.
  • GE Money Bank
  • HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  • World Financial Network National Bank

The following is a list of cases and Public Entities represented by Baron & Budd regarding the Deceptive Trade Practices of Credit Card Companies:

West Virginia:

State of West Virginia, ex. rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. Barclays Bank Delaware and Juniper Bank Delaware, (Circuit Court of Mason County)
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., Discover Bank, DFS Services, L.L.C., and American Bankers Management Company, Inc., Civil Action No.: 11-C-86-N (Circuit Court of Mason County)
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. Bank of America Corporation and FIA Card Services, N.A., Civil Action No.: 11-C-87-N (Circuit Court of Mason County)
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, N.A., Civil Action No.: 11-C-89-N (Circuit Court of Mason County)
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. First Premier Bank, First Premier Bankcard, and United National Corporation, Civil Action No.: 11-C-90-N (Circuit Court of Mason County)
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. GE Money Bank, Civil Action No.: 11-C-91-N (Circuit Court of Mason County)
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. World Financial Network National Bank, CSI Processing, LLC, and CCP North America, LLC, Civil Action No.: 11-C-92-N (Circuit Court of Mason County)
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. and HSBC Card Services, Inc., Civil Action No.: 11-C-93-N (Circuit Court of Mason County)
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., Civil Action No.: 11-C-94-N (Circuit Court of Mason County)

Mississippi:

Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Civ. No.: 3:12-cv-565 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Miss.)
Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services, Inc.; and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; Civ. No.: 3:12-cv-571 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Miss.)
Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi v. Citigroup Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; and Department Stores National Bank; Civ. No.: 3:12-cv-572 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Miss.)
Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi v. Discover Financial Services, Inc.; Discover Bank; DFS Services, L.L.C.; and American Bankers Management Company, Inc.; Civ. No.: 3:12-cv-573 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Miss.)
Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi v. Bank of America Corporation and FIA Card Services, N.A.; Civ. No.: 3:12-cv-574 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Miss.)
Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., and Capital One Services, LLC; Civ. No.: 3:12-cv-575 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Miss.)

Hawaii:

State of Hawaii, ex rel. David M. Louie, Attorney General v. Barclays Bank Delaware & Juniper Bank Delaware, Civil No. 12-1-0981-04 RAN (Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Hawaii)
State of Hawaii, ex rel. David M. Louie, Attorney General v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Chase Bank USA, N.A., Civ. No. 1:12-00263 LEK-KSC (U.S.D.C. D. Haw.)
State of Hawaii, ex rel. David M. Louie, Attorney General v. HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A., HSBC CARD SERVICES, INC., Civ. No. 1:12-00266 LEK-KSC (U.S.D.C. D. Haw.)
State of Hawaii, ex rel. David M. Louie, Attorney General v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Capital One Services, LLC, Civ. No. 1:12-00268 LEK-KSC (U.S.D.C. D. Haw.)
State of Hawaii, ex rel. David M. Louie, Attorney General v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., Discover Bank, DFS Services, L.L.C., Assurant, Inc., Civ. No.1:12-00269 LEK-KSC (U.S.D.C. D. Haw.)
State of Hawaii, ex rel. David M. Louie, Attorney General v. Bank of America Corporation, FIA Card Services, N.A., Civ. No. 1:12-00270 LEK-KSC (U.S.D.C. D. Haw.)
State of Hawaii, ex rel. David M. Louie, Attorney General v. Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Department Stores National Bank, Civ. No. 1:12-00271 LEKKSC (U.S.D.C. D. Haw.).

Pharmaceutical Litigation

Avandia

Baron & Budd has successfully represented public entities in pharmaceutical litigation involving fraudulent marketing. Baron & Budd recently concluded a case, obtaining a $177 million settlement for seven states against manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline concerning the diabetes drug Avandia. The attorneys at Baron & Budd, along with co-counsel, represented the states of Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. The lawsuit alleged that GlaxoSmithKline misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the drug Avandia, stating that Avandia reduced adverse cardiac events when the medical evidence suggested the drug actually increased them. The above seven states had opted-out of the federal/multi-state litigation, which garnered a combined settlement of $90 million for the thirty-eight public entities involved. This shows the experience and dedication that the Baron & Budd attorneys have to their Public Entity clients, providing them with the best possible representation with the best possible result.

The following is a list of cases and Public Entities represented by Baron & Budd and its co-counsel in litigation regarding the fraudulent marketing of Avandia:

State of Maryland v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 24C13003946 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, State of Maryland
Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Civil Action No. G-2011-1344, in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi
State of New Mexico by and through the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Gary King v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Case No. No: D-101-CV-2012-01432, First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, New Mexico
State of South Carolina ex. rel. Alan Wilson, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina v GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Civil Action No.: 2011-CP-42-2174, Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, Spartanburg, South Carolina
Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General of the State of Utah, ex rel. the State of Utah v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Civil Action No.: 100423795, in the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, West Jordan Department, State of Utah
State of West Virginia, ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Civil Action No.: 12-C-085, in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, West Virgina
Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Jack Conway, Attorney General v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 13-CI-717, Franklin Circuit Court, Division I

GranuFlo and NaturaLyte

Currently Baron & Budd, along with co-counsel, represent the State of Mississippi against Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and Fresenius, USA, Inc. regarding the fraudulent marketing of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte, components of dialysis treatments. Many men and women in Mississippi and throughout the United States have died as a result of cardiac arrest either during the administration of dialysis or shortly thereafter as a result of increased bicarbonate levels caused by these products. (Baron & Budd also represents nearly one thousand people who have suffered cardiac arrest and/or death during or after being exposed to GranuFlo or NaturaLyte). The State of Mississippi’s lawsuit is:

Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and Fresenius USA, Inc..; Civ. No.: 14-cv-152 (Chancery Court of Desoto County, Mississippi)

A Nationally Recognized Leader

Baron & Budd was selected to the National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in 2002-2006, 2008 and 2011-2012 (published by American Lawyer Media).
The Legal 500 has selected Baron & Budd as a top law firm from 2007-2013 (Legalease, Ltd.).
Baron & Budd shareholder Russell Budd has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America 2014. Shareholder Scott Summy has been selected 2006-2014.