Tag Archives: settlement

Settlement OKs return of indoor youth sports in California

Indoor youth sports can soon resume in California after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration agreed on Thursday to settle a lawsuit brought by two high-school athletes.The settlement means indoor youth sports can resume with testing in counties where there are 14 or fewer new cases of the coronavirus per 100,000 people, according to Marlon Gardinera, head football coach at Scripps Ranch High School in San Diego and the father of one of the students named in the lawsuit.Most counties already meet that threshold. As a whole, California is averaging 10.2 new virus cases per 100,000 people.“All high school sports can resume in California,” Gardinera said. “Kids can get back to doing what they love.”Details of the settlement were confirmed by Ian Friedman and Stephen Grebing, attorneys with the San Diego-based law firm Wingert Grebing who represented the students. State officials did not confirm the settlement, but California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said the state would issue new guidance soon.Last month, state officials allowed outdoor sports to resume using the same threshold. It required testing for students ages 13 and above in “close contact” sports like football, rugby and soccer in counties where the virus is widespread, according to state rules. But those rules did not apply to indoor sports.Thursday’s settlement changes that. Indoor sports can resume “as long as they follow same or similar testing guidelines that have been imposed on college and professional athletes,” Friedman said. Test results must be received within 48 hours of competition.Testing requirements vary by sport. For indoor sports like basketball, wrestling, martial arts and water polo, testing is required until a county averages less than 1 new coronavirus case per 100,000 people. For sports like badminton, gymnastics, bowling and swimming and diving, testing is required until a county averages between 1 and 3.9 new cases per 100,000 people.The state’s rules for youth sports are minimum standards. County public health departments can impose rules that are more strict than the state’s rules. Friedman said he and other lawyers at his firm will be monitoring how counties respond.He said counties that choose to ban indoor high school sports while allowing indoor college and professional sports could face legal challenges.“If there’s any counties that choose not to follow the (state) guidelines we’d be happy to take a look at filing new lawsuits in those counties as well,” he said.

Indoor youth sports can soon resume in California after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration agreed on Thursday to settle a lawsuit brought by two high-school athletes.

The settlement means indoor youth sports can resume with testing in counties where there are 14 or fewer new cases of the coronavirus per 100,000 people, according to Marlon Gardinera, head football coach at Scripps Ranch High School in San Diego and the father of one of the students named in the lawsuit.

Most counties already meet that threshold. As a whole, California is averaging 10.2 new virus cases per 100,000 people.

“All high school sports can resume in California,” Gardinera said. “Kids can get back to doing what they love.”

Details of the settlement were confirmed by Ian Friedman and Stephen Grebing, attorneys with the San Diego-based law firm Wingert Grebing who represented the students. State officials did not confirm the settlement, but California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said the state would issue new guidance soon.

Last month, state officials allowed outdoor sports to resume using the same threshold. It required testing for students ages 13 and above in “close contact” sports like football, rugby and soccer in counties where the virus is widespread, according to state rules. But those rules did not apply to indoor sports.

Thursday’s settlement changes that. Indoor sports can resume “as long as they follow same or similar testing guidelines that have been imposed on college and professional athletes,” Friedman said. Test results must be received within 48 hours of competition.

Testing requirements vary by sport. For indoor sports like basketball, wrestling, martial arts and water polo, testing is required until a county averages less than 1 new coronavirus case per 100,000 people. For sports like badminton, gymnastics, bowling and swimming and diving, testing is required until a county averages between 1 and 3.9 new cases per 100,000 people.

The state’s rules for youth sports are minimum standards. County public health departments can impose rules that are more strict than the state’s rules. Friedman said he and other lawyers at his firm will be monitoring how counties respond.

He said counties that choose to ban indoor high school sports while allowing indoor college and professional sports could face legal challenges.

“If there’s any counties that choose not to follow the (state) guidelines we’d be happy to take a look at filing new lawsuits in those counties as well,” he said.

Read original article here

Judge approves $650M Facebook privacy lawsuit settlement

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Friday approved a $650 million settlement of a privacy lawsuit against Facebook for allegedly using photo face-tagging and other biometric data without the permission of its users.

U.S. District Judge James Donato approved the deal in a class-action lawsuit that was filed in Illlinois in 2015. Nearly 1.6 million Facebook users in Illinois who submitted claims will be affected.

Donato called it one of the largest settlements ever for a privacy violation.

“It will put at least $345 into the hands of every class member interested in being compensated,” he wrote, calling it “a major win for consumers in the hotly contested area of digital privacy.”

Jay Edelson, a Chicago attorney who filed the lawsuit, told the Chicago Tribune that the checks could be in the mail within two months unless the ruling is appealed.

“We are pleased to have reached a settlement so we can move past this matter, which is in the best interest of our community and our shareholders,” Facebook, which is headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, said in a statement.

The lawsuit accused the social media giant of violating an Illinois privacy law by failing to get consent before using facial-recognition technology to scan photos uploaded by users to create and store faces digitally.

The state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act allowed consumers to sue companies that didn’t get permission before harvesting data such as faces and fingerprints.

The case eventually wound up as a class-action lawsuit in California.

Facebook has since changed its photo-tagging system.

Read original article here

Neumann agrees to 50% reduction in SoftBank settlement over WeWork

Adam Neumann has agreed to a 50 per cent reduction on the payout he will receive from WeWork’s largest investor SoftBank, ending a legal battle and paving the way for the shared office provider to go public.

SoftBank said on Friday it had entered a settlement agreement with Neumann and two WeWork board directors, who had sued SoftBank over the Japanese group’s reluctance to execute a $3bn tender offer it promised as part of a rescue package for the company.

The agreement comes 18 months after a botched initial public offering that brought WeWork to the brink of bankruptcy, following a series of high-profile blunders that led to Neumann’s resignation as chief executive.

Under the terms of the deal, SoftBank would spend $1.5bn to purchase shares from Neumann, WeWork employees and other investors in the company, including the venture group Benchmark Capital, according to people briefed on the matter. Neumann can sell up to $500m in shares in the deal.

SoftBank had initially planned to purchase double that amount as part of a multibillion-dollar rescue package in October 2019 but later reneged on the tender offer, claiming WeWork had failed to meet a set of conditions behind the rescue deal.

Marcelo Claure, executive chairman of WeWork, said the settlement was “the result of all parties coming to the table for the sake of doing what is best for the future of WeWork”.

Settling the dispute with Neumann was critical for allowing WeWork to potentially merge with a listed blank cheque company that would allow it to trade on public markets, said a person with direct knowledge of the matter. 

SoftBank is currently in talks with BowX Acquisition, a special purpose acquisition company that raised $420m in an IPO in August, about a merger that could value WeWork between $8bn and $10bn, said people familiar with the matter.

The talks have been active for several weeks, and a deal could be announced soon, although one person involved in the negotiations said WeWork could still opt to go public through a traditional IPO or a direct listing.

The new valuation would be a far cry from the $47bn mark WeWork hit in a round of financing it secured before the company faced criticism from investors over its huge losses, governance matters and revelations that Neumann was personally benefiting from a series of deals. 

Neumann would have no role in the running of WeWork, nor would he have a seat on the company’s board of directors, said people briefed on the settlement. However, he would retain most of his stake in the company. 

Read original article here

James Franco reaches settlement in sexual misconduct suit stemming from the acting school he founded

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case against James Franco announced they have reached a tentative settlement over allegations that the actor intimidated students at his acting and film school into sexual situations.

The two sides filed a joint status report in Los Angeles Superior Court telling a judge a settlement had been reached in the class-action lawsuit brought by former students at the Franco-founded Studio 4, which went defunct in 2017. Elements of the lawsuit may live on, though.

The document was filed on Feb. 11, but the settlement has not previously been reported.

Actresses and ex-students Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal, who first filed the lawsuit in 2019, have agreed to drop their individual claims under the agreement, according to the court filing. Their lawsuit said Franco pushed his students into performing in increasingly explicit sex scenes on camera in an “orgy type setting” that went far beyond those acceptable on Hollywood film sets.

JAMES FRANCO ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY 5 WOMEN, GRILLED BY SETH MEYERS

It alleged that Franco “sought to create a pipeline of young women who were subjected to his personal and professional sexual exploitation in the name of education,” and that students were led to believe roles in Franco’s films would be available to those who went along.

James Franco settled a lawsuit against him filed over alleged misconduct at his acting school.
(REUTERS/Mike Blake)

The lawsuit said the incidents occurred in a master class on sex scenes that Franco taught at Studio 4, which opened in 2014.

The two sides had been in discussions on a settlement for several months, and the lawsuit’s progress had been paused while they talked.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys from the firm of Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP, confirmed the agreement in a statement to The Associated Press on Saturday night, adding that it will be “further memorialized in a Joint Stipulation of Settlement to be filed with the Court at a later date,” but giving no further comment or details.

Representatives for Franco did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

In a previous court filing, Franco’s attorneys, while praising the #MeToo movement that helped inspire the lawsuit, called its claims “false and inflammatory, legally baseless and brought as a class action with the obvious goal of grabbing as much publicity as possible for attention-hungry Plaintiffs.” They pointed out that Tither-Kaplan had previously expressed gratitude for the opportunity to work with Franco.

JAMES FRANCO’S ACTING SCHOOL ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY EXPLOITING 2 WOMEN

The lawsuit also names Franco’s production company Rabbit Bandini and his partners including Vince Jolivette and Jay Davis as defendants.

The sexual exploitation allegations of other plaintiffs in the class action will be dismissed without prejudice, meaning they may be re-filed, the joint status report said.

Fraud allegations brought by those plaintiffs will be “subjected to limited release,” the document says, without further details or explanation.

Actor James Franco settled his lawsuit over sexual misconduct at his acting schoool.
(Reuters)

The document does not reveal how much money may be involved in the deal.

Before filing the lawsuit, Tither-Kaplan aired her allegations of sexual misconduct against Franco along with other women in the Los Angeles Times after Franco won a Golden Globe Award for “The Disaster Artist” in early 2018, when the wave of the #MeToo movement was sweeping across Hollywood.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

In a subsequent interview on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Franco called the sexual misconduct stories about him inaccurate, but said, “If I’ve done something wrong, I will fix it. I have to.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Franco, 42, best known for starring in comedies with Seth Rogen, has generally kept a low-profile since the allegations arose in what had been a highly productive period that culminated in the acclaimed “Disaster Artist.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Vale Agrees to $7 Billion Settlement for Brumadinho Dam Collapse

SÃO PAULO—Brazilian miner

Vale

agreed Thursday to pay $7 billion in compensation to the state of Minas Gerais where the collapse of its dam two years ago killed 270 people, polluted rivers and obliterated the surrounding landscape.

The settlement, the biggest in Brazilian legal history, is a watershed moment for a country long hampered by impunity and where miners and big businesses have often exerted more power than the state, especially in rural areas.

Public prosecutors said the $7 billion agreement is meant to compensate the state for the socioeconomic and environmental damage caused by the disaster. But it doesn’t affect the many pending homicide and other criminal charges in the case against the world’s largest iron-ore miner and former executives, including Vale’s previous chief executive,

Fabio Schvartsman.

The attorney general of Minas Gerais state,

Jarbas Soares Júnior,

said he hoped the size of Thursday’s settlement would send a message to the rest of the world: “We will not accept the exploitation of our resources without a minimum level of commitment to social and environmental responsibility.”

Vale accepted the decision and said it would book an additional expense of about $3.7 billion in its 2020 results.

“Vale is committed to fully repair and compensate the damage caused by the tragedy in Brumadinho and to increasingly contribute to the improvement and development of the communities in which we operate,” CEO

Eduardo Bartolomeo

said. “We know that we have work to do and we remain firm in that purpose.”

Mourners visited a memorial for victims of the Brumadinho dam collapse in 2019. Suicides and attempted suicides in the region soared following the disaster, particularly among women.



Photo:

douglas magno/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Vale’s investors welcomed the settlement as a way to avoid a drawn-out court battle, as did public prosecutors who cited other lawsuits over environmental problems in the state that haven’t been resolved after nearly 20 years.

The miner’s shares, which have increased about 60% in value since the dam collapsed, initially rose after news of the settlement, signaling investors’ hopes that the company can finally move past the disaster.

“Vale was able to get a discount of about one-third based on what the state government was asking, so they were skillful in this negotiation,” said

Ilan Arbetman,

an equities analyst at the Brazilian brokerage Ativa Investimentos. The miner has already provisioned a big part of the agreed value and is benefiting from high iron-ore prices, he said.

When Vale’s dam burst near the town of Brumadinho in January 2019, it unleashed a tsunami of mining waste speeding down the valley at up to 50 miles an hour, wiping out the on-site canteen where many workers were at lunch and destroying nearby homes and a guesthouse.

Two years later, the bodies of 11 victims still haven’t been found.

The collapse, one of the deadliest anywhere in the world, came only three years after a dam at another iron-ore mine jointly owned by Vale ruptured 100 miles away in the town of Mariana, killing 19 people and polluting more than 400 miles of river. The company vowed at the time that such a disaster would never happen again.

The settlement funds will be spent on environmental projects and shoring up local water supplies as well as improving transport networks and health services. The agreement also includes Vale’s initial costs in the aftermath of the disaster, when the company paid for temporary housing, mental-health professionals and emergency monthly stipends for residents.

Suicides and attempted suicides in Brumadinho soared in the year following the collapse, particularly among women. Some lost their husbands, sons and fathers at the mine, one of the region’s biggest employers, and were forced to wait months for rescue workers to recover the remains of their loved ones from the hardened mud.

Following the Mariana collapse in 2015, Vale and its partner at that dam,

BHP Group Ltd.

, created the Renova Foundation to manage compensation, which said it had paid out about $2.1 billion as of December last year. Prosecutors have said they believe that the second dam collapse in 2019 might not have occurred if Vale and BHP had faced tougher consequences for the first one.

In January last year, Brazilian prosecutors charged former Vale CEO Mr. Schvartsman and 10 others from the mining company with homicide. They also filed homicide charges against five people at Germany’s TÜV SÜD, the auditing company that certified the mine-waste dam as safe months before it ruptured.

All 16 people, including several high-level executives and directors at Vale, were also charged with environmental crimes, as were both companies as entities. Those charges are still being disputed in Brazil’s court system.

Prosecutors said last year it was clear that the dam had presented a critical structural risk since at least 2017 and that Vale had been fully aware of its safety problems. The German inspector certified the dam as safe despite also knowing about its structural problems, eyeing a chance to win multiple contracts with Vale and expand its Brazilian operations, they said.

As part of a year-long investigation into the disaster, The Wall Street Journal first reported in February 2019 the conflict of interest between Vale and TÜV SÜD, which worked as both an internal consultant and an independent safety evaluator for the miner.

A spokeswoman for Vale said Thursday that the miner wasn’t aware of an imminent risk at the dam. TÜV SÜD said it reiterated its commitment to “see the facts of the dam’s collapse clarified,” adding that it was cooperating with authorities. Mr. Schvartsman and the individuals facing criminal charges have denied wrongdoing in the case.

In recent years, Brazil’s public prosecutors have battled big companies with little success. After an oil spill off the coast of Rio de Janeiro in 2011, prosecutors filed lawsuits against

Chevron Corp.

for more than $7 billion. Two years later, they settled with the U.S. oil giant for $55 million.

Write to Samantha Pearson at samantha.pearson@wsj.com and Jeffrey T. Lewis at jeffrey.lewis@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

McKinsey Agrees to $573 Million Settlement Over Opioid Advice

Consulting giant McKinsey & Co. has reached a $573 million settlement with states over its work advising OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP and other drug manufacturers to aggressively market opioid painkillers, according to people familiar with the matter.

The deal, reached with 47 states and the District of Columbia and expected to be publicly announced Thursday, would avert civil lawsuits that attorneys general could bring against McKinsey, the people said. The majority of the money will be paid upfront, with the rest dispensed in four yearly payments starting in 2022.

McKinsey said last week it is cooperating with government agencies on matters related to its past work with opioid manufacturers, as state and local governments sue companies up and down the opioid supply chain. At least 400,000 people have died in the U.S. from overdoses of legal and illegal opioids since 1999, according to federal data.

The consulting firm stopped doing opioid-related work in 2019 and said in December its work for Purdue was intended to support the legal use of opioids and help patients with legitimate medical needs.

While some companies have reached deals with individual states to avoid trials, the McKinsey settlement marks the first nationwide opioid pact to come from the flood of litigation that began in 2017. A much larger, $26 billion deal with three drug distributors and Johnson & Johnson has been in the works for more than a year but is still being negotiated.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that McKinsey was close to a settlement with states and that a deal could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The negotiations occurred as hundreds of exhibits describing McKinsey’s work to boost OxyContin sales were made public in recent months during Purdue’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case in White Plains, N.Y.

Memos McKinsey sent Purdue executives in 2013 that have been made public in bankruptcy court filings included recommendations that the company’s sales team target health care providers it knew wrote the highest volumes of OxyContin prescriptions and shift away from lower-volume prescribers. McKinsey’s work became a Purdue initiative called “Evolve to Excellence,” which the U.S. Justice Department described in papers released last year in connection with a plea agreement with Purdue as an aggressive OxyContin marketing and sales campaign.

According to bankruptcy court records, McKinsey sent recommendations to Purdue in 2013 that consultants said would boost its annual sales by more than $100 million. McKinsey recommended ways Purdue could better target what it described as “higher value” prescribers and take other steps to “Turbocharge Purdue’s Sales Engine.”

Stamford, Conn.-based Purdue pleaded guilty in November to three felonies, including paying illegal kickbacks and deceiving drug-enforcement officials. The drugmaker filed for chapter 11 protection in 2019 to address thousands of opioid-related lawsuits brought against it. Purdue said in a lawsuit filed last week against its insurers that creditors have asserted hundreds of thousands of claims in the bankruptcy case and collectively seek trillions of dollars in damages.

McKinsey also advised other opioid makers on sales initiatives. The firm’s work for

Johnson & Johnson

came up in a 2019 trial in a case brought by Oklahoma against the drug company for contributing to the opioid crisis in the state through aggressive marketing of prescription painkillers. The trial ended with a $572 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson, which was later reduced to $465 million and is still on appeal.

The vast majority of the money McKinsey will pay in the settlement will be divided among the participating states, with $15 million going to the National Association of Attorneys General to reimburse it for costs incurred in the investigation, one of the people familiar with the deal said.

The settlement also includes some nonmonetary provisions, like requiring McKinsey to create a repository of documents related to its work for opioid makers, the person said.

The holdout states include Nevada, which said Wednesday night that its investigation into the consulting giant continues “and we are conversing with McKinsey about our concerns.”

Purdue has been negotiating with creditors, which include states, since filing for bankruptcy, but finalizing a deal has been slowed by demands from some states that the company’s owners, members of the Sackler family, contribute more than the $3 billion they have agreed to.

States have been keenly focused on ensuring any settlement money from the opioid litigation goes toward helping alleviate the impact of the crisis, including through beefing up treatment programs and helping overstretched law enforcement. The states are looking to avoid the outcome of the 1990s tobacco litigation, when a $206 billion settlement was often spent to fill state budget holes. The McKinsey settlement documents say the money is intended for abatement, the person familiar with the deal said, though state laws differ widely on how settlement funds can be earmarked.

Write to Sara Randazzo at sara.randazzo@wsj.com and Jonathan Randles at Jonathan.Randles@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Utility to pay $2B settlement in deadly 2018 California fire

Southern California Edison will pay $2.2 billion to settle insurance claims from a deadly, destructive wildfire sparked by its equipment in 2018, the utility announced Monday. Edison, which acknowledged no wrongdoing, said the agreement covers all claims in pending lawsuits from insurance companies related to the Woolsey fire, which blackened 151 square miles (391 square kilometers) of Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Three people died in the November 2018 fire, and more than 1,600 homes and other buildings were destroyed.In addition, Edison said it has finalized settlements from the December 2017 Thomas fire and mudslides a month later on land that burned. “We have made another significant step toward resolving pending wildfire-related litigation,” Edison CEO Pedro Pizarro said in the statement. Total expected losses for the 2017 and 2018 events are estimated to be $4.6 billion, the utility statement said. “The settlement was fair to all and consistent with prior cases against Edison and other utilities,” Craig Simon, co-lead counsel for the insurance companies, said in a statement to the Ventura County Star.Investigations determined Edison equipment sparked both the Woolsey and Thomas fires. In recent years, utility equipment has been blamed for multiple wildfires across the state. The state’s largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, was forced into bankruptcy in 2019 after facing liability for devastating blazes in Northern California.

Southern California Edison will pay $2.2 billion to settle insurance claims from a deadly, destructive wildfire sparked by its equipment in 2018, the utility announced Monday.

Edison, which acknowledged no wrongdoing, said the agreement covers all claims in pending lawsuits from insurance companies related to the Woolsey fire, which blackened 151 square miles (391 square kilometers) of Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Three people died in the November 2018 fire, and more than 1,600 homes and other buildings were destroyed.

In addition, Edison said it has finalized settlements from the December 2017 Thomas fire and mudslides a month later on land that burned.

“We have made another significant step toward resolving pending wildfire-related litigation,” Edison CEO Pedro Pizarro said in the statement.

Total expected losses for the 2017 and 2018 events are estimated to be $4.6 billion, the utility statement said.

“The settlement was fair to all and consistent with prior cases against Edison and other utilities,” Craig Simon, co-lead counsel for the insurance companies, said in a statement to the Ventura County Star.

Investigations determined Edison equipment sparked both the Woolsey and Thomas fires. In recent years, utility equipment has been blamed for multiple wildfires across the state.

The state’s largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, was forced into bankruptcy in 2019 after facing liability for devastating blazes in Northern California.

Read original article here

Harvey Weinstein’s bankruptcy judge confirms sexual misconduct settlement: report

Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct settlement has reportedly been approved by the judge overseeing his company’s bankruptcy proceedings.

The now-confirmed settlement resolves most claims from women who have accused the disgraced former movie mogul of sexual misconduct, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The settlement includes $17 million to be divided between the accusers for their misconduct claims via a point system, while an extra $8.4 million will be included for bankruptcy claims unrelated to misconduct allegations.

Nearly 40 women voted to accept the deal earlier this month, the outlet reports.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN ACCUSER SUES HIM SEEKING DAMAGES FOR ALLEGED ASSAULT

Next, a sexual misconduct claims examiner will take a look at each claim filed in addition to documents and statements in support of the activity in order to assign a “point award” that will be used to determine how much of the $17 million each accuser will receive.

Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct settlement has been confirmed by the mogul’s bankruptcy judge after a majority of accusers voted to accept the deal. (Photo by JOHANNES EISELE/AFP via Getty Images)

Each accuser will be given the opportunity to release all future claims against the former producer should their claim be allowed.

The accuser will receive their full payment once they agree to release Weinstein while those that do not choose to release him will only get 25% of the pre-determined amount they are offered. The remainder will go to insurance companies.

Included in the deal is a mandatory perpetual release of claims against board members of The Weinstein Company as well as of the company itself.

MAJORITY OF ROSE MCGOWAN’S CLAIMS AGAINST HARVEY WEINSTEIN DISMISSED: REPORT

The outlet reports that some accusers oppose the deal and feel that those offering accusations of rape should not be evaluated on the same level as those who claim only harassment. Additionally, the financial penalty for not releasing claims — as well as the mandatory release of claims against others — has also been strongly opposed by some.

Attorney Genie Harrison represents five accusers and said that her clients “have no doubt” the deal is fair, according to the outlet.

The deal will see $17 million divided among his accusers. (Alec Tabak/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

“This is not a close call to us,” she said. “My clients view this as a no brainer.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath agreed on Monday.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I will not get into an analysis of whether one victim’s claim has more validity or more value than another’s,” she said. “Every victim of Harvey Weinstein was victimized and deserves to have a say into the plan confirmation. If they choose not to release Mr. Weinstein they have the right to have a jury trial.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

They added: “83 percent of the victims have expressed very loudly that they want closure through acceptance of this plan.”

Weinstein’s attorney did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

Read original article here