US Judge Swiftly Rejects 'Phony' Settlement for Weinstein Victims
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.
July 14, 2020 at 11:42 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein
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:
Nearly $19 Million Compensation Fund Secured for Weinstein Victims, New York AG James Says
Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty of 3rd-Degree Rape and Criminal Sexual Act
Harvey Weinstein Sentenced to 23 Years in Prison on Sex Crime Conviction
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
© 2025 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 All![Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/93/83/6e669439491e8e50bd4237c2ccb1/wood-azcarate-767x633.jpg)
Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says
5 minute read![Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/therecorder/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2024/08/Google-Play-App-767x633.jpg)
Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly
5 minute read![Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator Is Still Evolving Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator Is Still Evolving](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/9e/77/14ee93c8424ea75c9b93861f16d7/shruti-ajitsaria-767x633.jpg)
Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator Is Still Evolving
4 minute read![Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2022/09/Employment-Discrimination-767x633-1.jpg)
Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Georgia Justices Urged to Revive Malpractice Suit Against Retired Barnes & Thornburg Atty
- 2How Gibson Dunn Lawyers Helped Assemble the LA FireAid Benefit Concert in 'Extreme' Time Crunch
- 3Lawyer Wears Funny Ears When Criticizing: Still Sued for Defamation
- 4Medical Student's Error Takes Center Stage in High Court 'Agency' Dispute
- 5'A Shock to the System’: Some Government Attorneys Are Forced Out, While Others Weigh Job Options
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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