Amid the objections of women accusing Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault and harassment, a federal ruling in New York rejected a proposed settlement that would oppose the producer, The Weinstein Co. and several of its directors.
At a hearing Tuesday, Federal District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected the initial approval of a proposed settlement filed in June through the group’s attorneys with the New York Attorney General’s Office.
On Monday, the objections of several women who discovered the agreement was incredibly unfair. The deal, which comes with a $18.875 million fund for those affected to receive payment through insurance companies, did not come with any popularity of irregularities through any of the defendants. It also provided a $1.5 million defense fund to cover the prices of protection claims filed through accusers who were not involved in the settlement. Also under the agreement agreement, the accusers allegedly released the defendants, who come with TWC board members, executives and Bob Weinstein, from alleged allegations of sexual misconduct, and the New York Attorney General’s office, Letitia James, was allegedly unable to prosecute. any similar action.
It is not unusual for a court to reject a proposed agreement during the initial approval phase. Organization attorney Elizabeth Fegan pointed out this point in her reaction to one of the many objections recorded. He argued that “there is a moment and a position for objections to an action agreement of elegance, and that’s not all.” Instead, Fegan argued, the parties to the conflict deserve to contain their criticism until the final approval of the court. In general, a court will give initial approval, then account for members of the organization, then Americans will record withdrawals and objections, and the court will do all of this after a final move for approval. The fact that Hellerstein abolished the proposed agreement so soon and made it clear whether those claims were justified in an action of elegance is remarkable.
Douglas H. Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer, who are several women who accuse Weinstein of abuse and harassment, were the first lawyers to consider Hellerstein’s decision. “We have been saying for over a year and part that the terms and situations of the agreement were unfair and deserve that victims of sexual assault are never imposed,” he reads. We were surprised that the group’s attorneys and the New York Attorney General did not recognize this fact, but we are pleased that Judge Hellerstein temporarily rejected the unilateral proposal. On the part of our clients, we look forward to doing justice as opposed to Harvey Weinstein and his many facilitators. »
John Clune, Zoe Brock’s lawyer, one of the many women who opposed the deal Monday, sent a message to The Hollywood Reporter in reaction to the ruling. “The judgment of passing the trial was nowhere near even contemplating this proposed agreement for multiple reasons, adding whether this case can be described as an action of elegance,” Clune says. He said “this is not an elegant action” and said he had already told the group’s lawyer, Beth Fegan. The opinion also raised a judgement on the idea that the provision that Harvey Weinstein would raise cash to protect himself against long-term trials. was “abhorrent.” This has never been lucky to be approved. Everyone needs a smart result for those survivors, but that proposal wasn’t that.”
The lawyers of Miriam “Mimi” Haley, who testified at trial for Weinstein’s criminals, also responded to the resolution. “Judge Hellerstein’s ruling very well dismantled a regulation that required women to settle for abuse by paying small sums in exchange for the release of Harvey Weinstein and all his facilitators,” wrote Gloria Allred, who supplies the consumer with John Cuti. “In the most sensible of all this, he allowed Harvey Weinstein, his brother and his lawyers to charge more than the women he abused. We will continue to fight for genuine justice behind Weinstein and the formula that has allowed him to perpetrate his abuses for decades.”
Alexandra Canosa’s lawyer, Thomas Giuffra, also welcomed the resolution. “Ms. Canosa and I are extremely pleased with the resolution rejecting the collective agreement and Judge Hellerstein’s refusal to certify this case as a group,” he said in a message to THR. “Judge Hellerstein declared all the flaws of agreement and elegance. Canosa was one of the few at the beginning of the Weinstein scandal who discovered the courage to stand up for what is right. She continued to show her bravery as one of the few who opposed an action deal of false elegance that was just for lawyers who raised millions of dollars at the expense of the victims. Mrs Canosa’s convictions were once confirmed, as justice prevailed with today’s resolution. shame to have put his help behind such an unfair and punitive agreement.”
A spokesman for the New York Attorney General’s Office sent THR the statement: “We will review the resolution and the next steps. Our workplace is fighting tirelessly to repair and continue to do justice to these brave women.”
Fegan and co-elegance adviser Steve Berman also launched a THR on Monday. “We were disappointed by the judge’s ruling this morning. We have long argued that we will have to find justice for all the women that Weinstein attacked in a fair and equitable way,” he reads. “We now want to focus on the continuation of our customers’ individual instances. We will also seek to appeal an earlier court ruling that excused the board of directors of The Weinstein Company, which we believe was aware of Weinstein’s habit and did nothing to prevent it. Array We believe they deserve to be held accountable for their silence and inaction. The brave women who confronted Weinstein and presented this action deserve our admiration, and we will continue to fight on his behalf.”
A de Weinstein declined to comment at this time.
Our affiliated publications