Insight into Trump Stormy Settlement Agreement

This week, porn star Stormy Daniels was on CBS's 60 minutes and since her interview, the White House reportedly isn't saying much, including declining for weeks to say whether President Trump was party to a $130,000 hush-money payment his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election. Cohen obtained a temporary restraining order against Daniels from a private arbitrator, a retired judge, barring her from disclosing "confidential information" related to the nondisclosure agreement. A lawsuit was filed after a multiple reports alleging that Daniels and Trump had an affair beginning in July 2006 at a celebrity golf tournament and was paid money for her to keep quiet in October 2016. While Daniels initially denied the affair, her decision to file the lawsuit confirmed her part in the affair. She and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, even included the text of the “hush agreement” as an exhibit attached to her complaint which, interestingly, uses pseudonyms for the parties and says they wish to avoid the lime, expense, and inconvenience of potential litigation, and to resolve any and all disputes and potential legal claims between them. The case was filed in L.A. Superior Court and then removed to federal court. The first controversy likely to be taken up by the judge is whether the dispute must be handled in arbitration, where Daniels is being pursued for allegedly breaching contract by making public statements about Trump. Also at issue, is who signed the agreement on behalf of whom. Although Trump hasn't formally moved yet to compel arbitration, the mere threat has prompted Avenatti to argue depositions of Trump and Cohen each are necessary in order to collect facts that bear directly on the formation of the hush agreement. See copy of initial pleadings, including agreement as exhibit linked at bottom of story here-- https://bit.ly/2GASrNK and more on federal court proceedings linked to this report-- https://bit.ly/2IdwotF

R.J. Reynolds to keep paying millions in FL Settlement

A Florida judge enforced a landmark settlement deal and ordered R.J. Reynolds to continue paying the state millions of dollars in tobacco settlement money, despite selling off major brands. The ruling comes nearly a year after Florida's Attorney General sued the tobacco company and Imperial Tobacco Group, a London-based company that took over North Carolina-based Reynolds American Inc. Reportedly, the A.G. said payments will ensure Florida's historic tobacco settlement is honored and the state receives the money it is owed. Florida was already owed $45 million when the suit was filed and could lose $30 million a year going forward. The judge found that until R.J. Reynolds has its obligation to pay Florida transferred to Imperial Tobacco Group, it must continue to pay. R.J. Reynolds and other large tobacco companies were part of a 1997 multibillion-dollar settlement with Florida to compensate the state for treating sick smokers. However, the company since sold cigarette brands Kool, Winston, Salem and Maverick to Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group, with neither company continued to make payments to the state. Pushed by then-Governor Lawton Chiles, Florida was one of the first states in the U.S. to seek damages from tobacco companies. The state's initial lawsuit sought reimbursement for Medicaid costs in the past and the future and contended that tobacco companies had engaged in unlawful actions and misleading advertising. Last year, the state was projected to receive more than $350 million from the settlement. See full story here-- http://bit.ly/2E79gvs

Cosby Confidentiality

Last summer, The New York Times published an article referring to the full transcript of Bill Cosby's 2005 deposition in Constand v. Cosby. Andrea Constand sued Cosby for sexual assault and agreed to a confidential settlement in 2006. Portions of the deposition transcript were previously released by a U.S. District Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, when referenced in an unsealed court document. Cosby's lawyers portrayed confidentiality as what induced them to make a settlement with his accuser in the first place. Court records can be sealed if there is good cause, which generally means the harm caused by making information available to the public is greater than its benefit. However, with the strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents, it is incumbent on parties and their attorneys to seek protection before filing confidential information in the court record. The federal judge denied motions from both sides over the release of the transcript from that decade-old deposition in the sexual-assault lawsuit against Cosby. Last week, decisions were issued denying Cosby's motion for leave to take discovery on how the transcript was released, as well as denying a motion for sanctions against Cosby's attorney for trying to take discovery. After the release of the full transcript, it reportedly became clear in court documents that a court reporting service provided the document to the press under the impression that it was a publicly available document. Cosby's lawyers alleged the release breached the confidentiality conditions of the settlement agreement. Interestingly, however, the presiding judge said such limitations were set forth in the settlement agreement, not in a court order and therefore, the court cannot conclude whether the disclosure would constitute a violation of of the parties' confidentiality agreement. See more in full story here-- http://bit.ly/1VNnEMe