US Judge Swiftly Rejects 'Phony' Settlement for Weinstein Victims
New York Attorney General Letitia James' office had announced the agreement June 30, touting it as a win for all women who were abused by Weinstein and faced sexual harassment and intimidation while working at his former film studio, The Weinstein Co.
July 14, 2020 at 11:42 AM
4 minute read
A Manhattan federal judge on Tuesday promptly rejected a proposed settlement that aimed to establish a nearly $19 million compensation fund for women who said they were victimized by disgraced ex-movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, in a setback for New York Attorney General Letitia James and plaintiff's lawyers who negotiated the controversial deal.
Less than 15 minutes into a preliminary approval hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York lambasted the "phony" settlement as an end-run around class certification in the case, which he said was not possible given the variety of interactions that the accusers had with convicted rapist and former Hollywood film producer.
James' office had announced the agreement June 30, touting it as a win for all women who were abused by Weinstein and faced sexual harassment and intimidation while working at his former film studio, The Weinstein Co.
Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison in March after he was convicted in New York on criminal sexual act and third-degree rape charges. He also faces additional criminal charges, including forcible rape, in California.
The proposed settlement sought to establish an $18,875,000 compensation fund and two-tiered claims process that would be overseen by a special master. According to James, the agreement would also release women from nondisclosure agreements they signed with The Weinstein Co., or its former representatives, tied to Weinstein's sexual misconduct.
Attorneys for some of Weinstein's accusers, however, blasted the deal as "one-sided and unfair," in part because it allowed the studio's former directors to recover attorney fees from insurance funds that they said should have gone to the survivors of Weinstein's abuse.
On Tuesday, Hellerstein said the proposed deal would treat all of Weinstein's victims the same, regardless of whether they were physically assaulted or had just met him after joining the company.
"Women who have been raped are entitled to a much greater recovery than those who just met him," Hellerstein said in a contentious exchange with attorney Elizabeth Fegan, who was first up in defending the deal.
Fegan, a class action attorney with the firm FeganScott, responded that the claims process was meant to allay those concerns, but Hellerstein immediately shot down the idea as an "abdication of the court's responsibility."
"I don't see how I could delegate that function to someone who's not a judge. I won't," he said, adding that Fegan should litigate her client's claims rather than chasing a settlement.
The hearing, which was scheduled to include arguments from at least eight speakers for and against the proposal, ended in just less than 20 minutes.
Douglas Wigdor, a prominent New York lawyer who represented six of Weinstein's accusers and vehemently opposed the settlement, quickly praised the ruling in a statement on Tuesday and vowed to continue "pursuing justice against Harvey Weinstein and his many enablers."
"We have been saying for over a year-and-a-half that the settlement terms and conditions were unfair and should never be imposed on sexual assault survivors. We were surprised that class counsel and the New York Attorney General did not recognize this fact but are pleased that Judge Hellerstein swiftly rejected the one-sided proposal," he said in a joint statement with attorneys Kevin Mintzer and Bryan Arbeit.
"We will review the decision and determine next steps," said a statement from James' office. "Our office has been fighting tirelessly to provide these brave women with the justice they are owed and will continue to do so."
Thomas Giuffra, who represents Weinstein victim Alexandra Canosa, said in a statement that Hellerstein's ruling "recognized all of the flaws of the agreement and class," and he would continue to litigate his client's claims in court.
"The Attorney General of New York should be ashamed of herself for putting her support behind such an unfair and punitive agreement," Giuffra said.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCuomo Accuser Drops Federal Lawsuit Against Ex-Governor
Atkins Likely to Bring Pro-Business, Light Regulatory Touch to SEC, Say Agency Observers
Amid 'Existential War for Talent', Paul Weiss Promotes Both Equity and Non-Equity Partners
5 minute readWhen A Criminal Lawyer Withholds Critical Information From His Client
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250