Latest news with #legal settlement
New York Times
2 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Harvard and White House Move Toward Potential Landmark Settlement
Harvard University and the Trump administration are nearing a potentially landmark legal settlement that would see Harvard agree to spend $500 million in exchange for the restoration of billions of dollars in federal research funding, according to four people familiar with the deliberations. Negotiators for the White House and the university have made significant progress in their closed-door discussions over the past week, developing a framework for a settlement to end their monthslong battle. The talks could still collapse, as President Trump and senior Harvard officials need to sign off on the terms of the deal. The sides are still going back and forth over important wording in for a potential agreement. But under the framework coming together, Harvard would agree to spend $500 million on vocational and educational programs, three of the people said. That figure, currently penciled in to be paid out over years, would meet a demand from President Trump that Harvard spend more than double what Columbia University agreed last month to pay. It would also satisfy Harvard's wish that it not pay the government directly, as Columbia is doing. Harvard would also make commitments to continue its efforts to combat antisemitism on campus, two of the people said. In return, Harvard — one of the largest recipients in higher education of federal research money — would see its research funding restored and avoid the appointment of a monitor, a condition the school has demanded as a way to preserve its academic independence, according to two of the people. The Trump administration would also end its widening number of investigations into the university, including ones conducted by the Justice Department and another inquiry that the Commerce Department announced on Friday. The deal would also stop attempts by the Trump administration to block Harvard from enrolling thousands of international students, according to three of the people. The stakes for reaching a deal are high for both Harvard and the administration. A deal would allow Mr. Trump to claim that Harvard forked over $500 million amid pressure from him. For Harvard, the deal would allow the school to remain one of the most robust higher education institutions in the country. Harvard has insisted that any settlement must not jeopardize its academic freedom, and Mr. Trump has taken a keen interest in the details. The people with knowledge of the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. Harvard declined to comment. Harvard has spent the last four months at the forefront of the opposition to the Trump administration's pressure campaign against higher education. It is the only school that has sued after the administration targeted it with explicitly punitive funding cuts. A settlement between the White House and the nation's oldest and wealthiest university would reverberate throughout academia and could shape how other schools respond to Mr. Trump's tactics. Last week, the administration proposed that the University of California, Los Angeles, pay more than $1 billion to reach a settlement with the government. Some terms in an agreement with Harvard are expected to be similar to ones included in a deal Brown University struck with the White House in late July, such as a provision intended to guard academic independence. Brown's deal included language that barred the government from dictating curriculum or the content of academic speech. It also touched on several other issues central to the administration's attacks on higher education, including transgender athletes who play on women's teams and the treatment of Jewish students in the wake of the protests against the Gaza war. Brown will have to ensure locker rooms and bathrooms are reserved for female athletes, perform outreach to Jewish groups and hire an external group to conduct campus climate surveys, for example. Although Harvard officials welcomed many of the Brown deal's nonfinancial conditions, they were stunned that the university agreed to pay only $50 million over a decade as they were being pressed to cough up 10 times that sum. But with the beginning of the school year approaching, negotiators have accepted that they will have to pay $500 million to strike a deal, and instead focused on how payments would be structured. One potential sticking point could be the government's access to admissions data, especially numbers involving applicants' race. The administration was seeking a stipulation in the deal that would require Harvard to release detailed admissions data, including on race and gender as well as grade point averages and standardized test scores. That would be consistent with an executive action that Mr. Trump signed last week, forcing schools nationwide to give the government similarly detailed data. Brown and Columbia, as part of their deals, both agreed to supply the administration with that information, something conservatives have sought in an effort to prove that elite schools have disregarded a recent Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action. May Mailman, a White House adviser driving the negotiations with top universities, suggested in a recent interview that Harvard's inclination to provide data surrounding its consideration of race in admissions would be a factor in the government's willingness to sign off on a deal. It was not clear on Monday how any agreement between the government and Harvard would resolve that demand, which the university has viewed as overly invasive. It was also not clear when Mr. Trump would be briefed on the potential agreement. The White House and the university opened negotiations in June, each seeking an offramp from a clash that began with accusations of antisemitism and became a battle over academic independence and the specter of federal overreach. The dispute between Harvard and the White House erupted in the spring after the Trump administration inadvertently sent the university a list of demands that would reshape student and academic life, including surveys of the student body's political ideology, audits of the curriculum and a reduction in the influence of untenured faculty. The university quickly refused them, and the administration responded hours later by starting to freeze billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard, like other top schools, depends on that funding and has done so for decades. The university took the administration to court in April, arguing that assorted government demands threatened Harvard's constitutional rights. The school also asserted that the government had violated its own procedures when it hastily cut off research funding. A federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's efforts when she heard arguments in the lawsuit in July. Both the administration and Harvard have asked the judge to rule in their favor without a trial, but she has not yet issued a ruling. Harvard officials have been combative, depicting their fight against the Trump administration as a vital crusade. But behind closed doors, they have been wary of a sustained war with the White House. Even if Harvard prevailed in court, some inside the university have argued, the administration could continue to pelt the school with investigations and subpoenas while, over time, bleeding it of research funding through more standard protocols. To them, a settlement was an unappealing but essential outcome. Although Harvard has an endowment valued at roughly $53 billion, much of it is restricted, meaning that university officials are limited in how they may use it. And the school has shown signs of financial strain as federal research funding has evaporated. University leaders warned last month that the blitz of actions from Washington, including an increase in the excise tax on endowments, could blow a nearly $1 billion annual hole in Harvard's budget. Still, proponents of a possible deal have faced fierce resistance on Harvard's campus in Cambridge, Mass. There, faculty members and students have warned that an agreement with the White House would amount to capitulation and that Mr. Trump could not be trusted to honor any arrangement over the long term. Given those concerns, Harvard's negotiators have pressed the administration in recent weeks, insisting that any resolution of their fight be structured as a legal settlement. A legal settlement would make it more difficult for the administration and Mr. Trump to change the terms after the fact. Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory, said in an interview last month that the university should ensure there is a clear process for resolving disputes. 'I would spell out what happens if a party feels the agreement is not being honored,' Dr. Hart said. Referring to the government, he added, 'If they have so many things up their sleeve, they're going to have those things up their sleeve once you've agreed on a deal.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Gina Carano settles legal dispute with Lucasfilm and Disney
Gina Carano has reached a legal settlement over her firing from The Mandalorian. The 43-year-old actress was fired from the hit TV series back in 2021, following a series of controversial posts on social media, but Lucasfilm and the Walt Disney Company have now confirmed that they've reached a settlement agreement with Gina. In a statement given to Variety, a spokesperson said: "The Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm are pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with Gina Carano to resolve the issues in her pending lawsuit against the companies. "Ms. Carano was always well respected by her directors, co-stars, and staff, and she worked hard to perfect her craft while treating her colleagues with kindness and respect. With this lawsuit concluded, we look forward to identifying opportunities to work together with Ms. Carano in the near future." Gina previously hit out at Disney on social media, accusing the media giant of trying to "control" what their employees say in public. The actress wrote on X: "Disney has confirmed what has been known all along, they will fire you if you say anything they disagree with, even if they have to MISREPRESENT, MALIGN, and MISCHARACTERIZE you to do it. They are now on record letting everyone who works for them know that Disney will take any chance they get to control what you say, what you think or they will attempt to destroy your career. Glad we cleared that up. The First Amendment does not allow Disney to wantonly DISCRIMINATE, which is what they have done in my case and frankly have now admitted they did. If you ever wanted to know what today's 'Disney values' are, they just told you. (sic)" Gina has yet to release a statement in response to the legal settlement. However, she seemingly referred to the settlement agreement in a recent social media post. The actress - who was cast in The Mandalorian back in 2018 - wrote on X on Thursday (07.08.25): "… and the truth shall set you free."
Yahoo
05-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How Jackson, MS, says it spent the Siemens settlement as federal judge investigation looms
A public records request submitted by the Clarion Ledger shows how the City of Jackson spent the majority of the money it received in a nearly $90 million legal settlement with Siemens, a multinational engineering company the city hired to revamp its water billing system. The contract, signed in 2013, was meant to overhaul the city's water billing system, but instead left thousands of residents with faulty meters, inaccurate bills and years of financial fallout. After legal fees and other deductions, Jackson received $59,829,531 from the settlement, according to public records. Roughly $30 million went to the law firms that represented the city — Lightfoot, Franklin & White of Birmingham, Alabama; Winston J. Thompson III PLLC of Jackson, Mississippi; and Ice Miller LLP of Indianapolis, Indiana — under a contingency-fee arrangement. The figure matches what interim City Attorney Drew Martin told U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate during a court hearing on July 14. The Clarion Ledger reached out multiple times on Monday, Aug. 4, to Mayor John Horhn's administration — including to interim Communications Director Nic Lott, interim Chief Financial Officer Fidelis Malembeka and Martin — by phone and email. None responded to questions about the public records, the federal investigation or whether this document is what the city intends to submit to Judge Wingate — or if it already has. Breakdown of Siemens settlement funds received by the City of Jackson $14,716,028 – Deposited into the water/sewer reserve fund, as required by bond covenant. $12,614,799 – Repaid to the city's General Fund. $18,540,107 – Placed in escrow at Trustmark Bank to cover: 1/12 principal payments 1/6 interest payments Debt service payments through December 2020 $3,500,000 – Used for emergency sewer repairs. $1,508,417 – Covered sanitation cash deficit due to billing system failures. $8,950,180 – Remaining balance for water system repairs or new billing system implementation. The public records request also notes that on Nov. 18, 2020, the Jackson City Council approved a contract with Mythics LLC — a company brought on to provide software, support, and maintenance services for the city's struggling water billing system — for $8,656,196.65. It states that $1,657,282.23 was paid to the company out of a $7 million emergency loan fund, and that $6,998,914.42 is being paid under the Sustainability Partners contract. Sustainability Partners, an Arizona-based firm, was initially hired by the city to replace broken water meters. It is unclear why any of this information was included in the Siemens settlement breakdown, and the city did not respond to multiple requests for clarification. The Clarion Ledger also requested to see budgets, memos, reports or other documents tracking how the Siemens funds were spent, but the city only provided a list of expenditures and did not include any supporting records. Court testimony largely matches public records, but gaps remain During the July 14 court hearing, Martin told Wingate the city had $59.8 million from the settlement as of April 30, 2020, and spent roughly $50 million between July and September of that year. He told Wingate that $36–37 million went toward bond debts and bringing the city into compliance with water and sewer bond covenants, with millions more covering deficits in the water and sewer departments. Martin's statements and figures generally align with the breakdown included in the public records request, though the records offer a more detailed account of how the money was distributed. However, Martin could not answer how the funds were deposited or who handled the transactions — two questions Wingate specifically raised. He said the city's finance department was still working to compile the relevant records. Iconic Jackson resident: Moments captured at Brent's Drugs in Fondren Mayor Horhn says city is nearly done gathering records Speaking after the Jackson City Council's July 29 meeting, Mayor John Horhn told the Clarion Ledger the city is still in the process of gathering all necessary documents to respond to Wingate's broad subpoena order. Horhn was not in the mayor's office during the Siemens lawsuit; it was handled under former Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba, who was notably not included in Wingate's list of subpoena recipients. 'We're still gathering all the documents, and it's a pretty large volume,' Horhn said. 'We should be close to submitting everything to Judge Wingate soon. From what we've seen, most of the $60 million the city received went toward debt service and other water system expenses. Some software — a product from an Oracle subsidiary — was also delivered to the city.' Horhn also questioned why the city paid out $30 million in legal fees, noting that the law firms involved never argued the case in court. Federal funding to MS private schools? MS can opt-in to new private school voucher program. What do experts say on the topic? Law firm challenges subpoena as city claims no records on legal fees One of those firms, Lightfoot, Franklin & White of Birmingham, Alabama, has challenged the subpoena. In a motion filed July 28, the firm argued it wasn't properly served, asks legal materials that violates attorney-client privilege and makes unreasonable demands given the firm's location. On July 12, the Clarion Ledger filed another public records request asking the City of Jackson to provide documentation showing how much was paid to each law firm or attorney involved in the 2020 Siemens settlement. All collectively received roughly $30 million — about one-third of the settlement — but how that money was divided among them remains unclear. In an Aug. 1 response letter, the city said it had no documents responsive to the request. 'This could be due [to the fact that] the prospective law firms deducted their fees prior to sending the City of Jackson its portion of the Siemens settlement,' the letter stated. Federal judge wants answers before approving water rate hikes Wingate is the federal judge currently overseeing Jackson's water system rehabilitation, which remains under federal control following the city's water crisis in 2022. He appointed engineer Ted Henifin as interim third-party manager in late 2022, a role that led to the creation of JXN Water, the independent entity now managing the system. In July, Wingate issued 18 subpoenas to city officials, JXN Water, Siemens, former Jackson public works directors and several law firms involved in the case. The subpoenas demand a full accounting of how the Siemens funds were allocated, including bank statements, disbursement logs, wire transfer records and other documents. In court, Wingate has expressed frustration with the city's lack of documentation. So far, no official has been able to provide a complete financial paper trail. Wingate has since paused a proposed rate increase for JXN Water customers, saying it would be unfair to raise residents' bills until the court knows whether all available resources — including Siemens settlement dollars — were exhausted. A $90 million contract that unraveled The original contract with Siemens dates back to 2013, when Jackson hired the multinational firm to install digital meters, modernize its billing platform and improve collections. The deal was worth $90 million and touted as a major step forward for the city's aging infrastructure. But the project quickly unraveled. Meters were installed improperly, some residents didn't get bills at all, and the city's revenue plummeted. Jackson sued Siemens and several subcontractors in 2019, accusing them of delivering a system that never worked. Siemens denied wrongdoing but agreed to the $90 million settlement in 2020. At the time, city leaders said the funds would help repair the damage and stabilize Jackson's water system. Charlie Drape is the Jackson beat reporter. You can contact him at cdrape@ This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: Records reveal how Jackson, MS, spent Siemens settlement money Solve the daily Crossword
BreakingNews.ie
30-07-2025
- BreakingNews.ie
Child who suffered brain injury when knocked down by neighbour's car settles action for €1.5m
A boy who it was claimed suffered a brain injury when he was knocked down by a neighbour's car in a housing estate has settled his High Court action for €1.5 million. The boy's mother told the High Court that the settlement brought an end to a six-year battle, which she said had brought her family 'to its knees.' Advertisement She said, 'With no supports over the past six years and more and more battles', it has had a devastating impact on the entire family. "We've had to battle a broken legal system, an outdated and unchanging education system, and a health system that seems so confused about its own roles that it leaves families like ours with no hope', she told Mr Justice Paul Coffey. The mother who thanked the judge for allowing her voice to be heard said she has had 'to fill all the gaps left by broken systems', and it is soul-destroying. 'Today, I will continue to rebuild our lives. My ongoing battling of systems has been reduced, but it doesn't end. It's an ongoing grief and loss of who and what we were as a family,' she added. Advertisement Her Counsel Liam Reidy SC instructed by McMahon Goldrick solicitors, told the court that the boy, when he was almost five years of age in 2019, was thought to have gone to a neighbour's house. 'The neighbour came holding the child in his arms. He had suffered injuries to the head and abdomen. There were no witnesses to the accident, but the boy's two shoes were found on the driveway of the neighbour's house,' Counsel told the court. Counsel said the neighbour had asserted that he did not see the child because the boy allegedly came out from behind a wheelie bin. The boy was later discovered to have an acquired brain injury. Advertisement The child cannot be identified by order of the court. The settlement is without an admission of liability. The boy's mother told the court that while she was 'grateful for this token of support' for her son, ' the reality is that this battle will continue for the rest of our lives — constantly challenging our mental health and our resilience.' She said the accident had impacted on her son's life, and the lives of everyone who loves him. 'He is a real character — kind, sensitive, and polite. He's determined not to let his brain injury stop him from living his life. But like anyone fighting a battle this big, sometimes it gets too much,' she said. Advertisement She told the judge they had lost the little boy her son used to be. 'He was easy-going, bright, sociable, happy and full of joy. He loved being out with his friends — and then suddenly, that was all gone. The first year was filled with severe headaches and giving his liver time to heal,' she said. In the proceedings against the neighbour, the now 11-year-old boy suing through his mother claimed there was an alleged failure to keep a proper lookout and an alleged failure to have regard to the residential area where children would regularly be about. It was also claimed that there was an alleged failure to make sure the way was clear before crossing the public footpath and into the driveway. All of the claims were denied.
