Advertising
Supported by
The opinion questioned whether the women involved in the proposed agreement constituted a legal class. He also claimed that a proposal to pay $12 million for the manufacturer’s legal prices and its “abominable” former managers.
By Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey
Expressing deep skepticism, a federal ruling Tuesday overthrew a proposed $25 million civil settlement between Harvey Weinstein, his former film company, and dozens of women who accused him of sexual harassment and abuse.
At a ferocious 18-minute telephone hearing Tuesday morning, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York highlighted the action of elegance at the heart of the deal, suggesting it was ill-conceived. It asks why women do not pursue individual cases, given the seriousness of their accusations, and whether the organization meets the definition of legal elegance.
“What makes me think that someone who has just met Harvey Weinstein has the same claim as the user who is raped through Harvey Weinstein?” asked the judge.
He then asked how the women’s accusations would be assessed and how the cash would be distributed among them, and asked for another $12 million that would have been spent on the legal prices of Mr. Weinstein and his former administrators of the “hateful” company. He criticized Beth Fegan, the plaintiffs’ top suggestion in the case of elegance action, saying he is playing over time “with regulations and attempts to create an organization that doesn’t exist.”
By the end of the appeal, the opinion had rejected a move for the initial approval of the agreement, essentially blowing the agreement, lawyers said. His resolution renewed an unfinished question: Will the hundred women who made allegations of sexual abuse through Mr. Weinstein, now a convicted rapist, see restitution?
The proposed agreement, and now the judge’s rejection, has left Weinstein’s alleged victims divided between those who supported the agreement, calling it flawed but necessary, and those who opposed it.
“Today a big setback,” said Caitlin Dulany, one of the leading plaintiffs. “The goal of my action is to set up a class, a hundred women and many others that were not explicit,” he said in an interview. “The motion #MeToo has united us all, they are survivors uniting forces.” Now, he says, the opinion on separated them.
The proposed settlement, which would also have required approval from a federal bankruptcy court in Delaware, has been debatable since it first appeared. It was a legal mix, consisting of various trials, adding the action of elegance, united in combination to achieve a global agreement. He did not force Mr. Weinstein to admit irregularities or make invoices to his alleged victims, but depended on insurance coverage.
These insurance companies would also have paid $12 million for some, but not all, of Mr. Weinstein’s legal fees; his brother Bob; and other former board members of the Weinstein Society, the study of the brothers. Board members would have been immune from long-term responsibility and alleged victims withdrew their opposing claims to Mr. Weinstein and other executives.
After the judge’s ruling Tuesday, Dominique Huett, one of the many accusers who had objected to the settlement, expressed relief. Under the agreement, Mr. Weinstein “will not have to be convicted of his misdeed,” he said, and was alarmed by the millions of dollars in legal fees the settlement stipulated for the convicted sex offender and his former board of directors. Directors.
“The opinion on so many known issues doesn’t even come close,” said John Clune, who represents Zoe Brock, another of the women who opposed the proposal. “Everyone needs an intelligent outcome for these survivors. It’s not that.”
But now the question of what these final results might be and how to achieve them is again open. While Weinstein was convicted of sexual offences with two women this year and is serving a 23-year criminal sentence, the civil settlement has long been considered the last and most productive hope of legal recourse for his many other alleged victims.
These women have worked with complicated limitations: because Weinstein is in the process of bankruptcy, they have had to assert their rights before their creditors. The accusers have already noticed an imaginable settlement cut from a planned $90 million fund for the sick that was discussed in connection with an imaginable sale of the film studio in 2018, when Weinstein went bankrupt.
In reaction to the decision, the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and the New York Attorney General said they were contemplating their options, none of which are easy. Some say they’re contemplating calls. But the now-rejected agreement took more than two years to negotiate, given the number of parties and complexity of the bankruptcy process, and many women would possibly be reluctant to resume the process.
Ms Fegan, the applicants’ main suggestion in the case of the elegant action, responded to the requests for comments.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said, “We will review the resolution and the next steps.”
“Our tireless struggle to provide these brave women with the justice they deserve and will continue to do,” Ms. James said.
Katherine Kendall, who said Mr. Weinstein harassed her and sued her in a salon in 1993, said she knew whether she would continue to file a civil lawsuit against her. “It may only take years,” he says. And she’s sure she needs to go on alone, without the group’s solidarity.
“It’s about bringing women together,” she said.
Benjamin Weiser contributed to the report.
Advertising