Justices Won't Review $380M 'Cy Pres' Agreement That Noel Francisco Held His Nose Over
The Justice Department in June, under U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, announced a new policy that generally prohibits government attorneys from entering into settlement agreements that require “cy pres” payments. Still, DOJ did not want the Supreme Court to disturb this settlement.
March 26, 2018 at 10:27 AM
3 minute read
Solicitor General's office at Main Justice in Washington. Credit: Mike Scarcella / NLJ
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review two separate challenges to a $380 million fund that is designated for third parties in a larger class action settlement between the federal government and Native American farmers and ranchers.
The U.S. Justice Department had urged the justices to deny review even though it previously had called the third-party agreement “regrettable” in the lower appellate court. So-called “cy pres” payments are funds that are given to persons or entities that are not direct parties to the dispute.
The Justice Department in June announced a new policy that generally prohibits government attorneys from entering into settlement agreements that require “cy pres” payments.
The $380 million fund is to be distributed to nonprofit groups that work with Native American farmers. The funds were part of a bigger $680 million settlement that the U.S. government reached in 2011 with the plaintiffs in the case in Washington's federal trial court. The farmers and ranchers had sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture for alleged discrimination in its loan programs from 1981 through 1999.
Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, counsel to the class in the underlying case, also had asked the Supreme Court to deny review.
The high court's action came without comment in Tingle v. Perdue and Mandan v. Perdue. Donivon Tingle and Keith Mandan challenged the constitutionality and fairness of the cy pres provision. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. did not participate in the vote. No reason was given.
In the Justice Department's brief opposing review, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the justices that Sessions' new policy “will prevent the recurrence of circumstances like those that led to the modified cy pres provision here, in turn eliminating any need for this court's guidance regarding the principles that would govern the legality and administration of cy pres provisions in settlements involving the federal government.”
Tony Mauro contributed reporting from Washington.
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 AllDivided 5th Circuit Shoots Down Nasdaq Diversity Rules
Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
5 minute readLawyers, Law Groups Oppose Proposal to Require Court Approval for Amicus Briefs
9th Circuit Judges Weigh if Section 230 Shields Grindr From Defective Design Claims
Trending Stories
- 1Some of 2024's Most Notable GC Moves Were Drenched in Drama
- 2Will 2025 Bring a Change to Lawyers' Mandatory Pro Bono Duties Under 'Madden'?
- 3Wholesale Real Estate Transaction Transparency and Protection Act Takes Effect Jan. 4: What You Need to Know
- 4Decision of the Day: 'Attorney's Eyes Only' Protective Order Denied; Good Cause Not Demonstrated
- 5The Crypto Guys Seem to Like Paul Atkins as a New SEC Commissioner, but Will He Be Good for the Securities Industry?
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