Read full article here: [ Ссылка ]
In the run-up to Tuesdays hearing, several alleged victims filed formal objections, calling the settlement unfair to the women on multiple counts. The judge identified so many problems, it was not even close, said John Clune, who represents one of the women who objected to the proposal. Functionally, the whole thing has been thrown out, he said, referring to the agreement. Everyone wants a good result for these survivors. This wasnt it. In the proposed settlement, which also would have required approval from a federal bankruptcy court in Delaware, the insurance companies would pay $12 million toward some, but not all, legal costs for Mr. Weinstein; his brother, Bob; and other former members of their companys board. The board members would be insulated from future liability, and the alleged victims would drop their claims against Mr. Weinstein and other executives. 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, Douglas H. Wigdor and two other lawyers representing several women who had challenged the settlement, said in a statement. 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. On behalf of our clients, we look forward to pursuing justice against Harvey Weinstein and his many enablers. In February, Mr. Weinstein was convicted of sex crimes against two women, a fraction of his numerous accusers, and was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison. The civil settlement has long been seen as the best hope of legal recourse for many of his other alleged victims.
