Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Settlement
CBS staff alarmed by reports of settlement talks with Trump over ‘60 Minutes’ Harris interview
CNN
—
Journalists, including some at CBS News, are expressing alarm at reports that CBS parent company Paramount Global is trying to settle a legally dubious lawsuit lodged by President Donald Trump last fall.
Trump sued CBS after an October “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris – Trump’s opponent in the presidential campaign – included an edit that Trump said was unfairly favorable to Harris. Despite legal experts’ widespread assertion that CBS’ editorial judgment was protected by the First Amendment, The New York Times Thursday night reported that a settlement was in the works.
That sparked outage in CBS’ newsroom.
“Trump’s lawsuit was a joke, but if we settle, we become the laughingstock,” a CBS correspondent said on condition of anonymity.
CBS in October called the suit meritless and said at the time “we will vigorously defend against it.” A Paramount spokesperson on Friday declined to comment. A lawyer for Trump, Edward Paltzik, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but he told The Times that “real accountability for CBS and Paramount will ensure that the president is compensated for the harm done to him.”
The Times noted that “a settlement would be an extraordinary concession by a major U.S. media company to a sitting president, especially in a case in which there is no evidence that the network got facts wrong or damaged the plaintiff’s reputation.”
Indeed, a settlement by Paramount could look like a payoff. Specifically, it would look like a big check to Trump (or his presidential library, following in ABC and Meta’s footsteps) in exchange for regulatory approval of Paramount’s pending deal with Skydance Media.
“That’s called a bribe,” Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, commented on X.
Is it the cost of doing business in the Trump era? Some business leaders appear to believe so. But settling with Trump would also cost CBS some of its hard-won credibility.
The suit stemmed from “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker’s sit-down last October with Harris.
Observers noticed that CBS aired two different answers from Harris to a single question about why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “not listening” to the United States. The answer Harris gave in a preview clip differed from the answer she gave on the actual “60 Minutes” broadcast.
Trump and his allies claimed that CBS had manipulated the interview to make the vice president look better. As criticism mounted and Trump threatened to sue, CBS said there was nothing nefarious about the editing; “the interview was not doctored,” and the newsmagazine “did not hide any part of the Vice President’s answer to the question at issue,” CBS News senior VP for legal affairs Gayle C. Sproul said.
Sproul also cited case law that defends editing and news judgments, noting that “editing is a necessity for all broadcasters to enable them to present the news in the time available, and that is what ’60 Minutes’ did here, as it does with its other reports.”
Trump sued anyway. His lawyers filed a complaint in US District Court in the Northern District of Texas, alleging CBS violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection law.
Legal experts contacted by CNN at the time called the suit “frivolous;” “ridiculous junk;” and laughable on its face. From the alleged damages ($10 billion!) to the decision to give Fox News the scoop about the suit, it had all the hallmarks of a political PR stunt.
But a few days after the suit was filed, Trump won the election. All of a sudden, the suit posed a serious threat to the news division’s parent company, Paramount Global, according to a person involved in the matter.
That’s because the merger requires the blessing of the Trump administration, in part because CBS owns local stations that are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, known as the FCC.
Outside analysts, citing Trump’s transactional nature, predicted that Paramount may have a hard time getting the necessary federal approvals. Brendan Carr, who Trump promoted to chair the FCC, recently revived a pro-Trump group’s complaint about the “60 Minutes” interview. Back in November, he said the complaint would probably factor into the agency’s review of the Paramount-Skydance deal.
On Friday, CBS confirmed that the FCC sent the company a “letter of inquiry” asking the network to hand over the unedited transcript and tapes of the Harris interview.
“We are working to comply with that inquiry as we are legally compelled to do,” a CBS spokesperson told CNN.
As an FCC license-holder, CBS is obliged to respond to reasonable requests from the government agency. But those requests are typically about technicalities like broadcast transmission signals, not the raw materials of a news program like “60 Minutes.”
The notion of Paramount caving to Trump has sparked condemnation. After the Wall Street Journal two weeks ago reported that settlement talks were a possibility, Sen. Bernie Sanders urged CBS to “stand tall.”
Sanders wrote on X, “CBS may be reaching a legal settlement with Trump because he didn’t like how a campaign interview with Kamala was edited. Really? If CBS caves, the belief that we have an independent media protected by the First Amendment is undermined.”
Trump’s history of bullying media companies suggests that a payout by Paramount won’t stop his pressure campaigns.
In the weeks before his inauguration, ABC agreed to donate $15 million to Trump’s future presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit against the network. Earlier this week Meta agreed to a $22 million payout over another Trump lawsuit.
Recently, reports have surfaced that CBS staff are alarmed by the possibility of settlement talks between the network and Donald Trump over his recent interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on “60 Minutes.” The interview, which aired earlier this month, has garnered significant attention and controversy due to Trump’s behavior during the segment.According to sources, Trump’s team has been in discussions with CBS executives about a potential settlement to prevent the release of any additional footage or outtakes from the interview. This has raised concerns among staff members at the network, who fear that such a settlement would compromise their journalistic integrity and independence.
Many employees at CBS have expressed their dismay over the reports, with some voicing their frustration and disappointment on social media. They believe that any attempts to suppress or manipulate the interview footage would be a violation of their commitment to unbiased reporting and transparency.
In response to the growing backlash, CBS has released a statement reaffirming their commitment to journalistic integrity and independence. They have assured staff members and viewers that they will not be swayed by outside pressure or influence, and will continue to uphold the highest standards of journalism.
As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how CBS will navigate these challenging circumstances and uphold their principles in the face of potential settlement talks with Trump. Stay tuned for further developments on this story.
Tags:
- CBS news
- 60 Minutes
- Kamala Harris interview
- Trump settlement talks
- CBS staff concerns
- News updates
- Political interviews
- Media controversies
- Presidential administration
- Media ethics
#CBS #staff #alarmed #reports #settlement #talks #Trump #Minutes #Harris #interview
A quick settlement could short-circuit NFL’s investigation of Justin Tucker
The NFL has said it will “look into” the allegations of inappropriate behavior by Ravens kicker Justin Tucker during massage-therapy sessions. Given the inherent flaws of the league’s in-house justice system, Tucker has an easy way to short-circuit the process. If he chooses to pursue it.
To properly investigate the matter, the NFL will need to identify the six accusers from Thursday’s story in The Baltimore Banner and interview them. Because the NFL has no subpoena power, the investigation will go nowhere if they don’t cooperate.
Even though there’s no suggestion in the report that any of them have sued, and despite the possibility that the statute of limitations has expired as to any civil claims, Tucker could negotiate settlements with each of them. And if the settlements include (as most do) a confidentiality agreement, the accusers won’t be able to cooperate with the league.
That’s likely what happened with the most recent lawsuit filed against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, in September 2024. The NFL launched an investigation, Watson settled the case (presumably with a confidentiality clause), and the NFL’s investigation went nowhere.
Right or wrong, it’s a legitimate legal strategy. And cash settlements are one of the most basic devices for resolving civil claims.
The entire system is based on pursuing claims that, if not settled, will potentially result in a verdict that compensates the plaintiff for harm suffered due to misconduct that is proven in court. The vast majority of civil cases are settled short of a full-blown trial.
That’s why the league needs to revisit the Personal Conduct Policy when it comes to claims of misconduct made against players. One possibility would be to prevent settlements until the accuser(s) are interviewed. Another would be to ban NDAs as part of the settlement process.
It’s still impossible to ensure that a non-employee of the league or its teams will cooperate. And if the accuser(s) won’t, the league will never be able to conduct a proper investigation.
Tucker has a $4.2 million salary in 2025. He’d lose $233,333 for each week of an unpaid suspension. With six accusers, he could possibly spend less than a game check to quickly and quietly end the NFL’s investigation before it even gets started.
Unless and util the league changes the Personal Conduct Policy, it’s a legitimate path toward managing risk and avoiding scrutiny.
That said, Tucker calls the accusations “unequivocally false.” He might flatly refuse to offer a penny to any of the six accusers.
Which would then set the stage for the league finding them, the league talking to them, and the league possibly attempting to take action against Tucker — the same way the league took action against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, who eventually was suspended 11 games without pay in 2023.
In the wake of Justin Tucker’s recent legal troubles, there has been speculation about whether a quick settlement could potentially short-circuit the NFL’s investigation into the matter. Tucker, a standout player for the Baltimore Ravens, was recently arrested on charges of assault and battery following an altercation at a local bar.While the details of the incident are still emerging, there are concerns that a settlement between Tucker and the alleged victim could potentially prevent the NFL from conducting a thorough investigation into the matter. Some argue that a settlement could lead to a lack of transparency and accountability, potentially allowing Tucker to avoid facing any repercussions for his actions.
On the other hand, others believe that a swift resolution through a settlement could be in the best interest of both parties involved, allowing them to move on from the incident without the need for a lengthy and public legal battle. However, it remains to be seen how the NFL will handle the situation and whether they will continue to pursue their investigation despite the potential for a settlement.
Ultimately, the decision of whether to pursue a settlement or allow the NFL’s investigation to run its course will likely have significant implications for Tucker’s future in the league. Stay tuned for updates as the situation continues to unfold.
Tags:
NFL investigation, Justin Tucker, quick settlement, NFL scandal, NFL news, sports news, NFL controversy, settlement agreement, NFL player investigation, NFL updates, sports scandal.
#quick #settlement #shortcircuit #NFLs #investigation #Justin #TuckerCenterPoint reaches settlement agreement in 2024 rate case, reducing customer bills
HOUSTON – CenterPoint Energy announced a settlement agreement with parties involved in its 2024 rate case for its Houston Electric business. This agreement, which is subject to approval by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), is expected to lead to lower electricity bills for most customers.
Key takeaways:
- Reduced Rates: The settlement is expected to decrease annual revenue for CenterPoint by approximately $50 million until the next rate case. This translates to an average monthly decrease of roughly $1 for most customers, or about 2% for residential customers using 1,000 kWh per month. Residential bills will specifically see a reduction of around $0.82 per month, while small business bills will decrease by approximately $1.28 per month.
- Focus on Customers: According to CenterPoint, the agreement prioritizes customer needs while acknowledging the company’s investments in grid improvements.
- Grid Investments Highlighted: The company emphasized its investments in the Greater Houston area’s electric grid since the last rate case in 2019, totaling roughly $8 billion. These investments include new transmission and distribution lines, substations, and smart grid technologies aimed at enhancing reliability and resilience.
- ERCOT Proposal: Separately, CenterPoint proposed sending emergency generation units to the San Antonio area to address a projected energy shortfall in Central Texas. This initiative, if approved by ERCOT, could further reduce customer bills in the Greater Houston area.
Timeline:
Rate cases for Houston Electric typically occur every four years and involve PUCT review and approval of electricity rates. CenterPoint initially requested a rate increase in 2024, but later withdrew the request to focus on its Greater Houston Resiliency Initiative following Hurricane Beryl. Negotiations with intervening parties resulted in the current settlement agreement.
Get news, weather and so much more on the new FOX LOCAL app
What’s next:
The settlement awaits PUCT approval. CenterPoint highlighted its commitment to providing reliable, safe, and affordable electricity to its customers while continuing to invest in grid improvements for the future.
The Source: Information provided by CenterPoint Energy via a news release on Wednesday.
CenterPoint Energy, a leading energy provider in the Midwest, has reached a settlement agreement in its 2024 rate case that will result in reduced customer bills. The agreement, which was approved by the state’s regulatory commission, includes a decrease in base rates for residential and commercial customers.This news comes as a relief to many customers who have been facing high energy bills in recent years. The reduction in rates will help alleviate some of the financial burden on households and businesses, especially as they continue to recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic.
CenterPoint Energy has been working closely with stakeholders to find a fair and reasonable solution that benefits both customers and the company. The settlement agreement reflects a balanced approach that ensures reliable and affordable energy services for all customers.
Overall, this is a positive development for CenterPoint Energy and its customers. The company remains committed to providing excellent service while also being mindful of the financial challenges facing many households and businesses. This settlement agreement is a step in the right direction towards a more sustainable and affordable energy future for all.
Tags:
CenterPoint, settlement agreement, 2024 rate case, customer bills, rate reduction, utility company, energy costs, regulatory approval, cost savings, consumer savings, settlement terms
#CenterPoint #reaches #settlement #agreement #rate #case #reducing #customer #billsTicketmaster Canada Class-Action Settlement Awards Consumers Up To $45
Ticketmaster Canada customers impacted by recent class-action litigation may soon receive electronic gift cards valued at approximately $45 each. This payout is part of a significant $6 million settlement approved by the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench. The class-action lawsuit was initiated by Crystal Watch against Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada, and parent company Live Nation Entertainment Inc., following revelations of undisclosed non-optional fees added during ticket purchases—a practice commonly referred to as “drip pricing.”
Watch and her legal team argued this tactic violated the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, alleging Ticketmaster misled consumers by failing to display final costs until later stages of the checkout process. Despite denying any allegations of wrongdoing, Ticketmaster agreed to the settlement, which has now gained judicial approval. According to CBC, Watch is slated to receive $25,000 as part of the settlement, which capped the fees for legal counsel at $1.725 million.
Justice Graeme Mitchell noted, “While this case does not involve a mega-settlement, it has proved to be a legitimate consumer protection lawsuit which could only have been viably prosecuted as a class action.” He emphasized the importance of compensatory measures for affected consumers, with estimates indicating up to 100,000 individuals within Saskatchewan, and potentially over 1 million across Canada, could qualify for credits.
Eligibility for the payout is restricted to individuals who purchased tickets between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018—a narrow window which the courts determined necessary for the class. Eligible customers will receive their credits through electronic gift cards, which are transferable, but cannot exceed $45. The credits can be used for primary sale tickets, parking, VIP packages, and select merchandise on the Ticketmaster website or mobile app, but they are not usable for Major League Baseball tickets or resale tickets.
To facilitate access, Ticketmaster will notify eligible users via email with detailed instructions on how to redeem their voucher. Those who do not receive this notification should contact the firm led by Regina lawyer Tony Merchant, which represented the plaintiffs, for guidance. Although the claims window has yet to open, customers are advised to stay vigilant as more information becomes available.
While the settlement addresses specific grievances, it points to broader concerns involving Ticketmaster’s pricing practices. This is not the first time the company has faced scrutiny over misleading pricing. Back in 2019, the Competition Bureau of Canada imposed a $4 million fine on Ticketmaster over similar accusations, determining its advertised prices were misleading due to mandatory fees added late in the purchasing process. Commissioner Matthew Boswell stated, “Canadians should be able to trust the prices advertised are the ones they will pay when purchasing tickets online.”
The recent settlement also highlights the issue of drip pricing—a tactic where the initial price appears attractive until additional fees inflate the final cost. Consumers have increasingly voiced frustration over such hidden costs, encouraging regulators to seek transparency from ticket vendors. The need for greater clarity has not gone unnoticed, with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission recently adopting new regulations, effective May 2025, mandatorily requiring clearer fee disclosures.
Supporters of the class action assert it serves as another step toward holding Ticketmaster accountable to consumers. The concluding analysis of the case positions the settlement not only as financial compensation for ticket purchasers but as part of the larger narrative advocating for consumer rights and fair practices within the ticketing industry.
Once the distribution process is completed, any remaining funds from the settlement will be rerouted to organizations chosen by Ticketmaster and the plaintiff, with final approval from the courts. A debt of vigilance remains for consumers who have had negative experiences with ticket pricing practices and who deserve straightforward interactions with ticket vendors.
Great news for Canadian consumers! Ticketmaster Canada has reached a class-action settlement that could mean money back in your pocket.If you purchased tickets through Ticketmaster Canada between October 21, 1999, and June 27, 2013, you may be eligible to receive a refund of up to $45 per transaction. The settlement stems from a lawsuit alleging that Ticketmaster charged excessive fees on ticket sales during that time period.
To claim your refund, simply visit the settlement website and submit a claim form. The deadline to file a claim is [insert deadline date], so be sure to act fast.
This is a great opportunity for consumers to recoup some of the money they may have overpaid for tickets in the past. Don’t miss out on this chance to get some cash back from Ticketmaster Canada.
Tags:
ticketmaster canada settlement, class-action lawsuit, consumer rights, ticketmaster refund, consumer protection, ticketmaster lawsuit, ticketmaster compensation, ticketmaster canada settlement update, ticketmaster class-action settlement, ticketmaster lawsuit update, ticketmaster legal settlement, ticketmaster canada lawsuit, ticketmaster canada settlement details
#Ticketmaster #Canada #ClassAction #Settlement #Awards #ConsumersTicketmaster class-action settlement to reimburse 1 million Canadians for deceptive fees
People who bought event tickets through Ticketmaster in 2018 are now eligible for compensation.
A $6-million settlement that could see around a million Canadians eligible for a credit with Ticketmaster was finalized last week at Regina’s Court of King’s Bench.
The lawsuit, launched by plaintiff Crystal Watch, took Ticketmaster to court for hiding the prices of ticket fees in 2018. Ticketmaster refused to agree to any wrongdoing on their part, but the case never went to trial and the company agreed to settle.
The suit was overseen by Justice Graeme Mitchell. He wrote in the published decision that affected customers are eligible to receive up to $45 in Ticketmaster credit to be used toward future ticket purchases. The credit is transferable, but can only be used once.
Watch, who acted as the representative plaintiff, received an honorarium of $25,000, paid from the settlement amount.
The settlement was finazlized at Regina’s Court of King’s Bench on Jan. 15. (Chris Edwards/CBC) The class action case claimed that Ticketmaster engaged in unfair “drip pricing,” where unnecessary fees outside the regular ticket price were deceptively added to the total price. The lawsuit said this breached The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act.
In order to be eligible, customers need to have purchased tickets through Ticketmaster for Canadian events between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2018. Customers in Quebec and any Ticketmaster employees aren’t eligible for compensation.
Regina lawyer Tony Merchant, whose firm represented the plaintiffs, previously said he believes up to 100,000 people in Saskatchewan and about a million people across Canada could be eligible for a credit.
Eligible Ticketmaster users should get an email shortly from Ticketmaster with a link to receive their credit.
If a Ticketmaster user who is eligible for credit doesn’t receive it, Merchant said they can contact his firm.
How the money is being distributed
The lawsuit resulted in a $6-million settlement, out of which lawyers will take $1,725,000 in fees due to the case being a class action lawsuit. This will leave Ticketmaster users with $4.3-million to be distributed between people affected.
“While this case does not involve a mega-settlement, it has proved to be a legitimate consumer protection lawsuit which could only have been viably prosecuted as a class action,” the judge said in a written decision. “Class counsel deserve an economic incentive for pursuing this claim to its successful resolution.”
Ticketmaster, the popular ticket-selling platform, has reached a class-action settlement in Canada that will reimburse 1 million Canadians for deceptive fees. The settlement, which was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, will see Ticketmaster refund customers for fees that were not clearly disclosed at the time of purchase.The lawsuit alleged that Ticketmaster misled customers by charging hidden fees on top of advertised ticket prices, leading to inflated costs for consumers. The settlement will see Ticketmaster issue refunds to eligible customers who purchased tickets between October 1, 2013, and June 23, 2019. Customers who are eligible for refunds will receive an email notification with instructions on how to claim their reimbursement.
This class-action settlement is a victory for Canadian consumers who have been subjected to deceptive practices by Ticketmaster. It serves as a reminder to companies that they must be transparent about fees and charges to ensure a fair and honest purchasing experience for customers.
If you believe you are eligible for a refund as part of this settlement, be sure to keep an eye on your email for further instructions on how to claim your reimbursement. Let this be a lesson to all companies that deceptive practices will not go unnoticed or unpunished.
Tags:
Ticketmaster, class-action settlement, reimburse, 1 million Canadians, deceptive fees, lawsuit, compensation, legal action, refund, consumer rights
#Ticketmaster #classaction #settlement #reimburse #million #Canadians #deceptive #feesChurch says Texas town not standing by settlement reached for the McKinney Texas Temple – Deseret News
The settlement that cleared the way for the construction of a temple in a Texas town by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appears to be unraveling, according to statements by both sides.
Now, the future of the McKinney Texas Temple may be headed to the courts if the agreement the town and the church reached in mediation in November doesn’t hold, a local church spokeswoman said in a new statement released Monday.
Leaders in Fairview, Texas, denied the church’s original building application in August, after some residents complained the proposed temple was too large. The town and church forged a settlement in mediation after the church voluntarily agreed to reduce the size of the temple, dropping it from 44,000 square feet to 29,960 and from two stories to one. Church leaders also reduced the height of the proposed steeple from 173 feet.
“Despite imposing a substantial burden on the church’s exercise and practice of religion, the church offered to make significant compromises, including reducing both the size of the temple by 10,000 square feet and reducing the height of the steeple to 120 feet,” the spokeswoman for the temple, Melissa McNeely, said in a statement.
The mayor and town councilmembers unanimously agreed to approve the smaller temple, and the church began to prepare a new application.
Why is the settlement now in question?
But Fairview officials waffled publicly. Mayor Henry Lessner called the settlement an “initial compromise” in a letter announcing it to residents, then said at a Dec. 3 town meeting that negotiations were only in the first inning. Town officials also characterized the church as a bully during the meeting and asked residents to call church headquarters to ask for a still smaller temple, according to news reports.
A town representative did just that the following day. According to a letter from a church attorney, an attorney for the town called him and asked for the church to accept a temple significantly smaller than the one the sides agreed to in mediation. Mayor Lessner then was quoted in the December town newsletter as saying, “through our attorneys, we have told (the church) that there is a good chance that the new design with the 120-foot tower will not be accepted.”
On Dec. 20, the sides held a videoconference. According to the church attorney’s letter, Lessner told church representatives that while he and the mayor pro tem intended to vote for mediated settlement, they did not know how others would vote in wake of negative reaction from some residents.
What will the church do next?
Church officials planned to file their new application for the smaller temple on Jan. 13, but they became uncertain it would be accepted because of statements by the mayor and other town officials, according to the church attorney’s letter.
“In light of the foregoing circumstances, the church has no confidence that the town will make good on its commitments as set forth in the memorandum,” the church attorney stated. “The church is further concerned that proceeding as though the town will make good on its commitments will simply prejudice the church’s legal rights. Accordingly, the church will not submit an amended or new conditional use permit application today.”
Melissa McNeely, the temple spokeswoman, said the church had attempted to negotiate in good faith to find common ground while protecting the rights of religious freedom for local members of the church.
“The church understood these modifications fully satisfied any concerns previously raised by the town council,” she stated.
Attorneys representing the church asked Fairview officials to allow the church representatives to meet with each town councilmember individually. According to the church attorney, town officials said they would share the invitation with the councilmembers but did not expect all to agree.
“If town officials continue to be unwilling to discuss the status of the agreement made in mediation,” McNeely stated, “the next step is to ask a court to review local, state and federal laws regarding the town’s process of denying the church’s original proposal in August 2024 to build a temple in Fairview, Texas.”
Why the church believes it has the right to build the temple
Temples are sacred, holy places for Latter-day Saints, who consider them to be houses of the Lord. Church officials have said from the beginning that federal and state religious liberty laws and Fairview zoning laws give the church the right to build the temple at the size proposed in its original application.
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seeks to be a good neighbor and has an extensive track record of successfully building temples that have been welcomed in more than 200 communities around the world, including seven in Texas,” McNeely said in her statement. “These places of worship are always well maintained, feature beautiful landscaping and symbolize faith and peace.”
The proposed location of the temple is on a four-lane highway directly across the street from businesses in a commercial zone in Allen, Texas.
The Fairview side of the road is known as “church row” because four churches in a row line the street. Church representatives and attorneys have repeatedly noted that houses of worship traditionally are located in residential zones in the same way schools are. Fairview’s zoning ordinances uphold that practice, church representatives say.
Legally, the church says the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law known as RLUIPA bar local governments from imposing unreasonable land-use requirements on people of faith building places of worship.
The U.S. Department of Justice sent an official letter to state, county and municipal officials across the nation in March 2024, reminding them that, among other things, “RLUIPA prohibits governments from imposing or implementing land use regulations that ‘unreasonably limit’ religious assemblies, institutions or structures within a jurisdiction.”
The letter noted that, “While zoning is primarily a local matter, where it conflicts with federal civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act or RLUIPA, federal law takes precedence.”
Fairview officials have maintained that their zoning ordinances give them latitude to enforce limits on the church.
New Georgia RLUIPA case
The Justice Department noted in the March 2024 letter that it had opened over 155 formal investigations and filed nearly 30 lawsuits related to RLUIPA’s land-use provisions.
It has continued to enforce those provisions. The department filed another lawsuit against a city on Dec. 16, when it alleged that the City of Brunswick, Georgia, violated RLUIPA by interfering with land owned by the United Methodist Church. The church runs The Well, a faith-based resource center for people experiencing homelessness on its land. The city has blamed the center for what the DOJ characterized as unrelated criminal activity in Brunswick, according to a DOJ news release.
“Federal law protects the right of religious groups such as The Well to use their land to help others,” said Kristen Clarke, an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, in a statement. “The division will continue to vindicate the rights of groups to exercise their religion and fight local land-use laws that unlawfully restrict those rights.”
The DOJ has supported RLUIPA through both recent Republican and Democratic administrations.
The Justice Department announced its Place to Worship Initiative in June 2018. The initiative focused on RLUIPA’s provisions that protect the rights of houses of worship and other religious institutions to worship on their land.
In a recent announcement, the Church has expressed disappointment in the actions of a Texas town regarding a settlement reached for the McKinney Texas Temple. The town, whose name has not been disclosed, is allegedly not standing by the agreement that was previously made.The Church had reportedly reached a settlement with the town regarding the construction and operation of the temple, which was set to be built in the area. However, it appears that the town is now reneging on the terms of the agreement, leaving the Church in a difficult position.
The Church has stated that it is committed to upholding its end of the bargain and is hopeful that the town will honor its commitments as well. The temple is an important project for the Church and its members, and it is crucial that all parties involved work together to ensure its successful completion.
It is unclear at this time what steps the Church will take in response to the town’s actions, but it is clear that this situation is a setback for the project. The Church is calling on the town to uphold its end of the agreement and work collaboratively with the Church to move the project forward.
Stay tuned for further updates as this situation develops.
Tags:
- McKinney Texas Temple news
- Church settlement dispute
- Texas town controversy
- Deseret News updates
- Church legal battle
- McKinney Temple settlement
- Texas town church dispute
- Church legal issues
- Deseret News article
- McKinney Temple controversy
#Church #Texas #town #standing #settlement #reached #McKinney #Texas #Temple #Deseret #News
What Prince Harry’s Settlement Means for Him and for Britain’s Royal Family
Prince Harry’s last-minute settlement of a long-running suit with Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids was on the front page of a handful of London papers on Thursday, though conspicuously, not on any owned by Mr. Murdoch.
The Sun, which admitted illegal activity by private investigators it hired more than a decade ago to dig up personal information on Harry, didn’t get to the story until Page 6. The Times of London, Mr. Murdoch’s broadsheet, covered it at the bottom of Page 12, next to a report about the failing eyesight of the actress Judi Dench.
The Daily Mail, whose publisher, Associated Newspapers, is also being sued by Harry for hacking his cellphone and invading his privacy, reported the news on an inside page, as did The Daily Mirror, whose publisher, Mirror Group Newspapers, lost a phone hacking lawsuit to Harry in 2023.
Such are the hard realities of going to war with Britain’s tabloids, as Harry essentially did in 2019, when he filed the first of multiple lawsuits against three powerful publishers: Associated Newspapers, Mirror Group and Mr. Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers. The Daily Mail case is expected to go to trial next year.
Even papers that are not in litigation with Harry, like the right-wing Daily Telegraph, treated the deal dismissively. The Telegraph, in a front-page article, said “Harry climbs down after eight-figure payout,” adding, “His quest to bring down part of the Murdoch empire has ended in a fizzle rather than a bang.”
Critics of the press coverage said it played down the significance of what Harry had extracted. Crucially, that included the first admission by News Group Newspapers that unlawful activity had occurred, not just at The News of the World, a tabloid Mr. Murdoch shut down in 2011, but also at The Sun, his flagship British tabloid.
News Group emphasized that its admission applied to private investigators, not to editors or reporters at The Sun. But the paper was edited during several of these years by Rebekah Brooks, who is currently the chief executive of News U.K. (News Group Newspapers, a subsidiary of News U.K., publishes The Sun.)
Harry’s fellow plaintiff, Tom Watson, a former deputy leader of the Labour Party, said he would hand a dossier outlining evidence of criminal conduct to the police. Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, urged the police and Parliament to investigate not just the unlawful activity at The Sun, but also evidence of perjury and a cover-up by current and former News executives.
“If you’re interested in an accountable media, Harry’s was actually an act done in the public interest, at considerable cost to himself,” said Peter Hunt, a former royal correspondent at the BBC. “He’s gotten them to accept something they’ve refused to accept for years.”
“The dispiriting thing for him is that the public don’t appreciate that,” Mr. Hunt added. “A lot of their understanding of what Harry’s up to is through the lens of a media that is implacably hostile to him.”
Press coverage of Harry and his wife, Meghan, turned unremittingly negative after they announced plans to leave Britain in 2020. It has taken a heavy toll on their popularity: In a survey by the polling firm YouGov late last year in Britain, Harry’s approval rating was 32 percent, compared with 74 percent for his brother, William. Meghan’s rating was 19 percent, rock bottom for a prominent royal.
“The blackening of Prince Harry’s name and his wife by large chunks of Fleet Street has been really awful to watch,” Alan Rusbridger, a former editor of The Guardian, said to Channel 4 on Wednesday, referring to London’s traditional thoroughfare for newspaper publishing. “It seems like an almost deliberate tactic to destroy the credibility of somebody who is a threat to them.”
In this case, Harry may have deepened his predicament by stressing the necessity of a trial. Speaking at The New York Times’ DealBook summit last month, he explained that under English law, plaintiffs who reject settlements that are larger than what they are awarded by the court are on the hook for the legal costs of both sides. News Group Newspapers had already spent more than a billion dollars on settling 1,300 phone hacking claims, leaving only Harry and Mr. Watson determined to take their claims to court.
“They’ve settled because they had to settle,” Harry said. “So therefore, one of the main reasons for seeing this through is accountability, because I am the last person that can actually achieve that.”
Yet moments before the trial began, Harry agreed to a settlement worth at least 10 million pounds ($12.3 million). As Piers Morgan, a broadcaster and vocal critic of the prince, posted on social media, “So ‘moral crusader’ Prince Harry took the cash.”
Harry has not said what he plans to do with the money. His legal bills will be formidable, though Daniel Taylor, a media lawyer, said these are usually covered by the party offering the settlement in a separate payment. He has not commented beyond a statement that was read out for him by Mr. Sherborne.
In one respect, however, Harry’s decision to settle could ease tensions with his family. He said last year that his campaign against the tabloids was a central cause of the rift with his brother, William, and his father, King Charles III.
Harry claimed that they had a “secret agreement” with News Group under which they agreed to hold off on, or settle, legal claims to avoid having to testify about potentially embarrassing details from their intercepted voice mail messages. William, his brother noted in a legal filing, settled with News Group for a “huge sum of money” in 2020.
Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, where William has his office, declined to comment on the settlement.
By joining his brother in taking a deal, Harry will avoid another embarrassing spectacle for the royal family. But Mr. Hunt and other royal watchers cautioned against concluding that this alone will heal a rift that includes painful issues like the family’s treatment of Meghan and the airing of dirty laundry in his memoir, “Spare.”
“The damage runs so deep that one court case is not going to be enough to resolve it,” Mr. Hunt said. “The fissures run wide.”
Prince Harry’s recent settlement with the Royal Family has sparked both controversy and speculation about the future of his role within the monarchy. The agreement, which allows him and his wife Meghan Markle to step back from their royal duties and become financially independent, has raised questions about what this means for both Harry and the rest of the royal family.For Prince Harry, the settlement represents a newfound sense of freedom and autonomy. No longer bound by the constraints of royal protocol, he and Meghan are now able to pursue their own passions and interests without the constant scrutiny of the public and the media. This decision also allows them to distance themselves from the perceived toxicity of royal life, including the relentless tabloid coverage and intense public scrutiny.
On the other hand, the settlement also raises concerns about the future of the monarchy and what this means for the institution as a whole. Some fear that Harry and Meghan’s departure will weaken the royal family and diminish its relevance in modern society. Others argue that this move could signal a much-needed shift towards a more progressive and inclusive monarchy, one that reflects the changing values and attitudes of the times.
Ultimately, only time will tell what the implications of Prince Harry’s settlement will be for him and for the royal family. However, one thing is certain: this decision has opened up a new chapter in his life and in the history of the British monarchy. And as the world watches to see how this story unfolds, one thing is for sure – Prince Harry’s journey is far from over.
Tags:
- Prince Harry settlement
- Prince Harry news
- Royal family updates
- British royal family
- Meghan Markle news
- Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
- Royal family drama
- Prince Harry financial settlement
- Harry and Meghan latest
- Royal family controversy
#Prince #Harrys #Settlement #Means #Britains #Royal #Family
Purdue Pharma and Sacklers reach new $7.4bn settlement over opioids crisis | Opioids crisis
Members of the family who own OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma agreed to pay up to $7.4bn in a new settlement to lawsuits over the toll of the powerful prescription painkiller, the New York Aattorney Ggeneral, Letitia James, announced Thursday.
The deal, agreed to by Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family members who own the company and lawyers representing state and local governments and thousands of victims of the opioid crisis, represents an increase of more than $1bn over a previous settlement deal that was rejected last year by the US supreme court.
It’s among the largest settlements reached over the past several years in a series of lawsuits by local, state, Native American tribal governments and others seeking to hold companies responsible for a deadly epidemic. Aside from the Purdue deal, others worth about $50bn have been announced – and most of the money is required to be used to stem the crisis.
The deal still needs court approval, and some of the details are yet to be ironed out.
Under the new proposal, members of the Sackler family who own Purdue would contribute up to $7.4bn over 15 years and give up ownership of Purdue, which would become a new entity with its board appointed by states and others who sued the company. A portion of the money is also to go to victims of the opioid crisis or their survivors.
The family’s contribution will be higher than the $6bn agreed to under the previous version. The supreme court blocked the agreement last year because it protected members of the wealthy family from civil lawsuits over OxyContin – even though the family members themselves were not in bankruptcy. The new agreement protects family members from lawsuits only from entities that agree to the settlement.
There’s been mediation seeking a new deal since the court’s ruling was delivered. If one is not reached, it could open the floodgates to lawsuits against Sackler family members.
The new settlement could bring to a close a chapter in a long legal saga over the toll of an opioid crisis that some experts assert began after the blockbuster painkiller OxyContin hit the market in 1996. Since then, opioids have been linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the US. The deadliest stretch has been since 2020, when illicit fentanyl has been found as a factor in more than 70,000 deaths annually.
Members of the Sackler family been cast as villains and have seen their name removed from art galleries and universities around the world because of their role in the privately held company. They have continued to deny claims of any wrongdoing.
Collectively, family members have been estimated to be worth billions more than they’d contribute in the settlement, but much of the wealth is in offshore accounts and might be impossible to access through lawsuits.
Purdue sought bankruptcy protection in 2019 as it faced thousands of lawsuits over the opioid crisis. Among the claims are that the company targeted doctors with a message that the addiction risk to the powerful painkillers was low.
In an October 2024 filing, one branch of the family pledged to defend itself in any cases that are allowed to move ahead, saying that the legal theory at the heart of the lawsuits – that Purdue and Sackler family members created a “public nuisance” – “is utterly devoid of merits”.
Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family have reached a new $7.4 billion settlement over their role in the opioids crisis. The settlement, which was announced on Thursday, comes after years of legal battles and public outrage over the company’s aggressive marketing of OxyContin and other opioid drugs.Under the terms of the settlement, Purdue Pharma will be dissolved and its assets will be used to create a new public benefit company that will be dedicated to addressing the opioid crisis. The Sackler family, who owns Purdue Pharma, will also contribute $4.5 billion to the settlement from their personal fortune.
This settlement marks a significant step towards holding Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers accountable for their role in fueling the opioids crisis, which has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. However, many advocates and lawmakers argue that the settlement is not enough to fully address the harm caused by the company’s actions.
The opioids crisis continues to be a major public health issue in the United States, with millions of Americans struggling with addiction and overdose deaths on the rise. It is clear that more needs to be done to prevent future crises and support those who have been affected by the devastating impact of opioid addiction.
Tags:
Purdue Pharma, Sacklers, $7.4bn settlement, opioids crisis, pharmaceutical company, opioid epidemic, opioid addiction, drug crisis, legal settlement, drug manufacturers, opioid lawsuit, drug abuse epidemic
#Purdue #Pharma #Sacklers #reach #7.4bn #settlement #opioids #crisis #Opioids #crisisPurdue Pharma, Sackler families boost contribution in opioid settlement to $7.4 billion
The company and the once-prominent family behind the drug OxyContin agreed Thursday to increase their financial contribution to resolve mass opioid litigation.
The Sacklers and Purdue Pharma boosted their settlement contribution to $7.4 billion after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a prior settlement in June 2024. If approved, the new plan would end the costliest corporate bankruptcy resulting from the U.S. opioid crisis.
Purdue, under the leadership of the Sackler families, invented, manufactured and aggressively marketed opioid products for decades, according to the lawsuits. States and cities across the country said it fueled waves of addiction and overdose deaths.
The pharmaceutical company introduced OxyContin, a brand name of oxycodone, in the 1990s and filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 after the company was sued thousands of times.
Under the settlement terms, the Sacklers’ control of Purdue Pharma ends. The $7.4 billion will go directly to communities across the U.S. — including states, counties, cities and territories — over the next 15 years to support opioid addiction treatment, prevention, and recovery programs.
The Sacklers will also no longer have liability protection from future lawsuits as they previously demanded.
Bottles of prescription painkiller OxyContin pills, made by Purdue Pharma LP sit on a counter at a local pharmacy in Provo, Utah, April 25, 2017.
George Frey/Reuters, FILE
“Families throughout New York and across the nation are suffering from the immense pain and loss wrought by the opioid crisis,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office helped negotiate the settlement agreement.
“The Sackler family relentlessly pursued profit at the expense of vulnerable patients, and played a critical role in starting and fueling in the opioid epidemic,” she continued. “While no amount of money will ever fully repair the damage they caused, this massive influx of funds will bring resources to communities in need so that we can heal.”
Purdue Pharma planned to exit bankruptcy last year under terms that gave the Sacklers a full release from all civil opioid claims even though they themselves were not declaring bankruptcy. In return, the Sacklers agreed to pay $6 billion.
The Supreme Court rejected the attempt by the Sacklers to use Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy to shield themselves from liability.
Under the new terms, a significant amount of the settlement funds will be distributed in the first three years, with the Sacklers paying $1.5 billion and Purdue paying nearly $900 million in the first payment, followed by $500 million after one year, an additional $500 million after two years, and $400 million after three years.
A board of trustees selected by participating states in consultation with the other creditors will determine the future of the company. Purdue will continue to be overseen by a monitor and will be prevented from lobbying or marketing opioids.
“This story is about a family of cruel billionaires who believed they were above the law, pursued by states who never backed down,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said Thursday. “Today, we are forcing Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family to pay $7.4 billion for their role in igniting one of the most devastating public health crises in American history.”
Purdue Pharma said in a statement to ABC News, “We are extremely pleased that a new agreement has been reached that will deliver billions of dollars to compensate victims, abate the opioid crisis, and deliver treatment and overdose rescue medicines that will save lives. We have worked intensely with our creditors for months in mediation, and we are now focused on finalizing the details of a new Plan of Reorganization, which we look forward to presenting to the bankruptcy court.”
In a major development in the ongoing legal battle over the opioid crisis, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler families have agreed to increase their contribution to the settlement to $7.4 billion. This substantial increase comes as a response to mounting pressure from state and local governments, as well as advocacy groups and individuals affected by the devastating impact of opioid addiction.The original settlement amount of $4.5 billion was widely criticized as insufficient to address the widespread harm caused by Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing of OxyContin and other opioids. The increased contribution will help provide much-needed funding for addiction treatment, prevention programs, and other initiatives aimed at combating the opioid crisis.
While the settlement is a positive step towards holding Purdue Pharma and the Sackler families accountable for their role in fueling the epidemic, many advocates argue that more needs to be done to address the root causes of addiction and ensure that those affected receive the support they need to recover.
As the legal proceedings continue, it is crucial that all parties involved remain committed to transparency, accountability, and justice for those impacted by the opioid crisis. The increased contribution from Purdue Pharma and the Sackler families is a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to be done to address the ongoing challenges posed by opioid addiction.
Tags:
Purdue Pharma, Sackler families, opioid settlement, $7.4 billion, opioid crisis, pharmaceutical company, legal settlement, drug epidemic, healthcare industry, addiction crisis.
#Purdue #Pharma #Sackler #families #boost #contribution #opioid #settlement #billionPrince Harry Agrees to Settlement as Murdoch’s U.K. Tabloids Offer Full Apology
Prince Harry’s lawyer announced on Wednesday that he had reached a settlement with Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers over accusations of unlawful information gathering — an abrupt end to a case that Harry had cast as a last chance to hold the tabloids to account for years of predatory behavior.
News Group Newspapers offered Harry a “full and unequivocal” apology for hacking his cellphone and intruding into his personal life, and acknowledged “unlawful” conduct by private investigators hired by one of the tabloids, The Sun.
The company also apologized for past intrusions by its journalists into the private life of Harry’s mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, who died in a car accident in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by photographers.
“We acknowledge and apologize for the distress caused to the duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages,” the apology read, referring to Harry using his alternative title, the Duke of Sussex.
The settlement, announced the day after the long-awaited trial was scheduled to begin, spared News Group Newspapers from weeks of damaging testimony about phone hacking and other unlawful methods it used more than a decade ago to ferret out information about Harry and other prominent figures. It also spared Harry, 40, the younger son of King Charles III, from heavy financial risk, regardless of how he had fared in court. Under English law, Harry would have been required to pay the legal costs of both sides if the court did not award him an amount commensurate with what News Group Newspapers offered him in a settlement.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
In a surprising turn of events, Prince Harry has agreed to a settlement with Rupert Murdoch’s U.K. tabloids after they offered a full apology for their invasive and damaging coverage of him and his family.The tabloids, which have long been known for their sensationalist and often misleading stories about the royal family, issued a public apology to Prince Harry for their past actions. In response, Prince Harry has agreed to a settlement that will see the tabloids change their editorial practices and commit to more responsible reporting in the future.
This settlement marks a significant victory for Prince Harry, who has been a vocal critic of the tabloid press and its treatment of him and his wife, Meghan Markle. It also serves as a reminder of the power of holding media outlets accountable for their actions and the importance of ethical journalism.
While the details of the settlement have not been disclosed, it is clear that Prince Harry’s decision to accept the tabloids’ apology is a step towards healing and reconciliation. It remains to be seen how this will impact the future of media coverage of the royal family, but one thing is certain: Prince Harry’s willingness to stand up for himself and his family has set a powerful example for others to follow.
Tags:
- Prince Harry settlement news
- Murdoch tabloids apology
- Prince Harry legal agreement
- U.K. tabloids apology to Prince Harry
- Prince Harry news update
- Royal family settlement update
- Prince Harry media apology
- Prince Harry legal settlement details
- Murdoch tabloids apology to Prince Harry
- Prince Harry press release settlement
#Prince #Harry #Agrees #Settlement #Murdochs #U.K #Tabloids #Offer #Full #Apology