Category: News Feeds

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/50711421807/sizes/m/

MDC MP Priscilla Misihairambwi-Mushonga unrolled a reed mat in front of the Finance Minister Ncube and then knelt down showering praise on him before handing him a wooden plate and two tshirts saying she was proud of him for providing sanitary ware for girls.

Some MPS questioned why she was allowed to perform this ritual, asking why women were expected to kneel before men (see: https://www.newzimbabwe.com/misihairabwi-mushonga-in-mthuli-ncube-parly-drama/).

As for South Africa’s Chief Justice Mogeong’s comments, there are real fears that they might promote doubts about the safety of the anti-covid vaccines. He was filmed at a hospital event leading a prayer against ‘any vaccine that is of the devil, meant to infuse 666 in the lives of people to corrupt their DNA’. (666 is a widely recognised symbol for the devil.) He later defended his remarks saying that, as a Christian, ‘prayer was his constitutional right’. (See: https://www.enca.com/news/chief-justice-mogoeng-prays-against-vaccines-devil.)

Civil and political rights have come under added threat in Southern Africa because of Covid 19, according to the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, which says the political elite has been abusing lockdown regulations to tighten their grip on power. The coalition, which groups Zimbabwean civil society organisations, marked international human rights day on 10^th December with the theme ‘recover better, stand up for human rights’.

It cites rape, torture, discrimination, corruption, inadequate provision of health services and food insecurity as among the rights’ violations. ‘Consequently, the democratic deficiency in most SADC countries has been worsened by the Covid 19 pandemic’, it said. (See: https://www.thezimbabwean.co/2020/12/crisis-coalition-statement-on-international-human-rights-day/.)

Other Points:

• Any pretence that the Zimbabwean Broadcasting Corporation is politically impartial as required by the constitution has been exposed by the election of its chief correspondent Reuben Barwe to a Zanu PF position in Makoni. MDC Alliance spokesman Fadzayi Mahere said it was an absolute joke that a ZBC reporter can hold a political party office and keep his job (see: https://zwnews.com/zbc-chief-correspondent-reuben-barwe-wins-zanu-pf-election/).
• The corruption scandal engulfing Harare City Council has deepened with the alleged involvement of the Local Government Minister July Moyo and the Harare Metropolitan Provincial Minister Oliver Chidawu. They are said to have tried to get charges dropped against the Council’s Human Capital Director Cainos Chingombe, who is facing corruption charges for allegedly transferring into his personal bank account US$130,000 meant for the provision of water, sanitation, education and recreational services (see: https://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-national-byo-196098.html).
• Zimbabwe’s foreign missions are struggling, according to the chair of the parliamentary portfolio committee on foreign affairs who said some of the country’s embassies abroad were dilapidated and members of staff were failing to pay school fees and medical bills and drove rundown cars (see: https://www.newsday.co.zw/2020/12/chaos-as-zim-abandons-embassies/).

• Because of the coronavirus we can no longer physically meet outside the Zimbabwe Embassy in London, so we have a virtual Vigil while the restrictions continue. We ask our activists to put on Vigil / ROHR / Zimbabwe regalia and take a photo of themselves holding an appropriate poster reflecting our protest against human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. The photos are uploaded on our Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/albums/72157717280772467. Our virtual Vigil activists today were Rudo Takiya, Charles Mararirakwenda and Margaret Munenge who all kindly contributed to Vigil funds.
• For Vigil pictures check: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/. Please note: Vigil photos can only be downloaded from our Flickr website.

 

Notices:

• The Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe (ROHR) is the Vigil’s partner organization based in Zimbabwe. ROHR grew out of the need for the Vigil to have an organization on the ground in Zimbabwe which reflected the Vigil’s mission statement in a practical way. ROHR in the UK actively fundraises through membership subscriptions, events, sales etc to support the activities of ROHR in Zimbabwe. Please note that the official website of ROHR Zimbabwe is http://www.rohrzimbabwe.org/. Any other website claiming to be the official website of ROHR in no way represents us.
• The Vigil’s book ‘Zimbabwe Emergency’ is based on our weekly diaries. It records how events in Zimbabwe have unfolded as seen by the diaspora in the UK. It chronicles the economic disintegration, violence, growing oppression and political manoeuvring – and the tragic human cost involved. It is available at the Vigil. All proceeds go to the Vigil and our sister organisation the Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe’s work in Zimbabwe. The book is also available from Amazon.
• Facebook pages:

Vigil: https://www.facebook.com/zimbabwevigil

ROHR: https://www.facebook.com/Restoration-of-Human-Rights-ROHR-Zimbabwe-International-370825706588551/

ZAF: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Zimbabwe-Action-Forum-ZAF/490257051027515

Post published in: Featured

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta recently granted a group of Shona people who migrated from Zimbabwe to Kenya between 1930 and 1950 citizenship, Kenyans.co.zw reports

The people who have been staying in Kenya as illegal immigrants reportedly settled in Nairobi first and started a church before they finally settled in Kinoo, Kiambu County

The Shona people together with  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have been lobbying the government of Kenya to recognize them as citizens because they intermarried and have been in the country for decades before Kenyatta granted their request.

HARARE, Zimbabwe – Over the past one decade female farmers in landlocked southern African country Zimbabwe’s urban landscape are not only bridging gaps in food security but bringing additional incomes to their families.

When Denis Chihota, working as a messenger in one of the government departments in the capital Harare, was unable to earn enough to attend to the family with six children, his 47-year-old wife Madeline ventured into farming.

Even as growing crops in the middle of cities remains illegal, Madeline has harvested four tons of maize on the patches of land around her home, despite rough weather and little rain this year. She says that her endeavor in farming not only defeated hunger but has also supplemented the income of her family.

“I earn 2,800, Zimbabwean dollars [$34]. I thank my wife for the job she is doing by raising crops on the small fields. She is bringing much more food on the table than I do,” her husband told Anadolu Agency.

According to a report published by the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC), over 2.2 million people in Zimbabwean cities and towns are facing food insecurity. The UN’s World Food Program (WFP) has scaled up its urban assistance program to deliver monthly cash transfers to at least 550,000 Zimbabweans in 20 of the country’s most food-insecure urban areas.

In June this year, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) extended $10 million aid to families in urban areas struggling to meet their daily food needs due to the impacts of COVID-19.

Even as food aid trickles in for desperate city dwellers, Zimbabwe’s urban women farmers like Madeline have become a big hit as they not only address food deficits but have also contributed to the country’s comatose economy.

“It is all because they see their men struggling to make both ends meet that women in cities and towns here occupied available land spaces to plant crops to supplement their domestic food needs,” said Bheki Dlodlo, an independent development expert based in Harare.

– Joblessness pushes women to farming

Catherine Mukwapati, a noted women rights defender who heads the Youth Dialogue Action Network, estimated that there are 230,000 women across the country’s towns and cities involved in urban agriculture.

Speaking to Anadolu Agency, Claris Madhuku, a social activist, said that unemployment has also pushed the country’s urban women to farming.

“Like any other citizens, you would find that women also come to the cities with high hopes of getting employment as they join their husbands or relatives. But they do not get any and at the end of the day, some switch to farming. They sell their products and even provide food for their families,” he said.

“There is a food crisis in the cities. As women, we cannot just sit and watch whether we are in town or the village. We just have to do what we can to make sure there is food in our homes,” said Madeline, while walking away with a basket of maize that she has grown around her home.

Historically, when lawyers would have hissy fits over attire it was some older attorney bemoaning the rise of business casual and lionizing the antiquated attorney dress code because playing dress-up fills a void where their confidence should be. But pandemic Zoom has changed the whole dress code complaint ball game.

We’ve had a state court issue guidance scolding lawyers from showing up poolside and a guy show up to a criminal hearing… naked? Maybe? So this latest scuffle fits right in.

Delaware Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III issued an unusual order a couple weeks ago. Counsel had written ex parte to complain “that [the court] would not consider an application from him because he “was not wearing a tie.” The Vice Chancellor conceded, “That is true, as the record reflects.” Now we utter the immortal words, “wait for it…”

What the record also reflects is that Mr. Weisbrot appeared in court for trial (via Zoom) on Tuesday in either a printed tee-shirt or pajamas (it was difficult to discern).

Oh, you’re one to talk! You’re up on the bench wearing a black Mumu!

Seriously though, there’s a good deal of daylight between “not wearing a tie” and “wearing pajamas.”

In the attorney’s defense though, the complaint actually arose from a second interaction. After being scolded about Pajamagate, his next appearance made an effort to cure his past transgression. Unfortunately, he fell a bit short:

Mr. Weisbrot ignored that direction; he appeared in a sport coat and open-collared shirt; I refused to hear his “application” and then directed that he go off camera. He then refused the Court’s direction.

I’d compare this to the red suit from My Cousin Vinny, except Vinny was trying to comply in good faith. After being told, “hey, dress up for court,” showing up without a tie feels like a deliberate attempt to mock the court. And that’s certainly how this court took it.

For his part, the lawyer said that a “medical condition” prevents him from wearing a tie. No doubt the same medical condition that keeps people from wearing masks. In any event, the Vice Chancellor is a bit incredulous, responding with the legalese version of “things that could have been brought to my attention YESTERDAY.”

Finally, Mr. Weisbrot reports for the first time in his ex parte email that a medical condition prevents him from wearing a tie. He states that “he had hoped to explain this but was not given a chance.” That is inaccurate. If the condition existed as of the pretrial conference (held a week before trial), Mr. Weisbrot could have raised it then. He did not. If it existed at the start of trial, he could have raised it then, particularly when the Court inquired of counsel whether there were any “housekeeping matters” to address. He did not. Most importantly, he could have raised his medical condition at the start of yesterday’s trial session in response to the Court’s admonition to counsel the night before to be properly attired for Court. Or he could have raised it in response to the numerous instances during the course of yesterday’s trial session where the Court inquired of counsel whether there were “housekeeping matters” to address. Again, silence. Instead, as noted, Mr. Weisbrot chose to activate his camera (and thereby appear in the trial) at the end of the trial day, interrupting a witness’ examination so he could make “an application.” He was dressed in a sport coat and open collared shirt. I reminded him of my admonition and advised him he could not participate in the trial. I then directed that he go off camera. He refused. All the while he said nothing of a medical condition.

In the end, the lawyer received a medical exemption from the court’s rules pending the submission under seal of proof of his condition.

While we wait to see if there’s any further action, perhaps we could interest this guy in some seersucker? It’s basically a pair of pajamas that courts have decided to accept for some mind-boggling reason.

(Full order on the next page.)

Earlier: Miami Judge Reminds Attorneys To Wear Pants For Zoom Hearings
Is This Attorney Naked During A Criminal Hearing?

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Yesterday, the Biglaw firm of Sheppard Mullin announced year-end bonuses. But what should have been a positive moment for the firm — which made $799,139,000 in gross revenue last year, making it 54th on the 2020 Am Law 200 ranking — was instead met with dissatisfaction. So, let’s take a look at what’s going on at the firm.

The announcement (available in full on the next page) sets out the following scale, with associates able to hit market year-end bonuses at the 2,000-hour threshold:

What’s noticeably absent from that bonus scale is any mention of the special bonuses that became all the rage among Biglaw firms starting in the fall, in appreciation of associates’ hard work during the pandemic. At Sheppard’s peer firms, those special bonuses range from $7,500 to $40,000, depending on class year, and are in addition to the year-end bonus numbers.

To be fair, the firm’s announcement also indicated more money was on the table for some associates, and as reflected in the step-ups at 2,200 and 2,400 hours in the chart above:

We are pleased to announce 128 associates will be receiving a discretionary bonus, compared to 74 in 2019. This is the largest number of discretionary bonuses ever awarded and the highest percentage under our current system. We also are proud to announce 83% of our associates will receive a bonus for hours, discretionary contributions or both. This is eight percentage points higher than last year and the highest in recent years. Discretionary bonus decisions will be shared during annual evaluation meetings.

But, tipsters at the firm are not optimistic they’ll hit the full market bonus threshold:

Despite the chairman repeatedly promising during associate town halls in the past few months that the firm would pay “market bonuses,” these bonuses are not in any way market, ie they do not have Covid bonuses. At most, the firm is giving out “discretionary” bonuses that range from $2,500 to $10k but only if you bill from 2000-2,400 hours. And only 128 associates will even get that!

It’s a complete slap on the face to all of the associates who kept this firm afloat this past year. And we won’t forget.

And there are a lot of folks at the firm who don’t anticipate market bonuses:

No special bonuses – are you kidding? After repeatedly being assured that our finances are excellent (including the firm’s best month – ever), that associate loyalty during pay cuts would be rewarded, and that the firm would pay market bonuses, turns out the firm doesn’t pay market rate or on par with the firms it claims are its peers. Instead, we get black box “discretionary bonuses” (typically small) from a firm that touts its transparency. Thanks a lot.

The firm’s previous messaging of having a strong financial performance played into many tipsters’ perceptions that they’d make full market bonuses, only to have the rug pulled out from under them:

SMRH did not do fall/Covid bonuses. We had an across the board associate salary cut for associates in May; and it was lifted—and we were paid full restitution— in October, after we were told that the firm had done quite well despite COVID. Indeed, associates were told that the firm’s profits for the year end were beating PRE-COVID expectations.

Against that backdrop, everyone—and I mean everyone—believed the firm would match the Covid bonus structure of the major market firms. As you’ll see from this announcement, that has not happened. Rather, the firm is relying on its black box “discretionary bonus” notion; that is usually tied to some combination of non-billable work and prompt time entry over the last year. And while discretionary associate bonuses are not formally “announced” by the firm, they are generally no more than 10k.

Needless to say, absent further information about this year’s “discretionary bonus” system, this announcement is a total morale disaster. Within minutes of the email, associate internal emails and Skype messenger was blowing up. Everyone thinks they’re going to get screwed; and that the discretionary bonus is likely to be a relative drop in the bucket. Further, the fact that whatever the “extra” bonus ends up being, it’s not tied to measurable productivity—but rather some nebulous combination of things (including the‘professional statement’—which is a paragraph self evaluation that every associate writes at the end of the fiscal) is just incredibly disappointing.

I guess some people are holding out hope that—in the end—it will match the big law Covid bonus scale. But the overwhelming consensus is that we’re not in that ballpark.

Super disappointing.

So yeah, insiders are pissed, here’s a sampling of more reactions:

Unsurprisingly, not even a hint of a “Special” Covid bonus – despite repeated suggestions that the firm is having a good year and performing well financially. “Discretionary” bonuses are just that, and unlikely to actually make associates whole. Very frustrating that we’re back to paying below market.

No mention of Covid appreciation bonus. Apparent consolation of giving more discretionary bonuses (to 128 associates — maybe 1/4th of us). I heard that discretionary bonuses were capped at $10k in previous years, too. Folks are pissed.

Sheppard Mullin announced bonuses for associates and people are very disappointed in the lack of special bonuses. Discretionary bonuses are historically very small compared to the special bonus amounts. People do not feel optimistic that discretionary bonuses will come close to matching special bonuses.

The firm consistently states it is doing great, and associates are feeling very discouraged to be left out of the firm’s success. I have heard associate responses ranging from outrage to feeling unmotivated to continue working as hard as they have been. Considering the stealth layoffs (“performance based firings” all done at the same time…) Sheppard did early in the pandemic and the impact such layoffs had on morale, this choice was a missed opportunity for Sheppard to step up and be better.

As always, we depend on you when it comes to bonus news. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

With 2020 almost in the rearview mirror, we thought it would be a good time to solicit nominations for Above the Law’s annual LAWYER OF THE YEAR competition. Which lawyers made major headlines during the year that was?

We’ll conduct the competition as we’ve done for the past decade. Please submit your nominees to us by email (subject line “Lawyer of the Year 2020”). We will review them and pick a slate of finalists, and then you’ll vote on them in a reader poll.

The winner will join an august group of past LOTY honorees, including Chief Justice John Roberts (2012) and President Barack Obama (2008). But the contest has room for “fun” as well. Just last year, Christopher Hook, a lawyer who told a Biglaw partner to “eat a bowl of dicks” during settlement negotiations took home the grand prize, and in 2015, our champion was a young Texas lawyer by the name of Bryan Wilson — better known to the world as the “Law Hawk,” famous for his irreverent and creative attorney advertisements.

What does it take to be nominated? As we’ve explained before:

What are the criteria for being our Lawyer of the Year? Since you’re doing the nominating and voting, it’s really up to you.

You can nominate a LOTY based on whatever reasoning you choose — e.g., because the lawyer in question is influential, infamous, awesome, or awful.

As reflected in the past victory of Loyola 2L (2007), not all nominees need to be famous — or even named. And as with the past victory of Kyle McEntee and Patrick Lynch (2010), the co-founders of Law School Transparency, you can nominate multiple people if their achievements are closely related.

We have only three things to ask of you before the nominations begin to roll in:

• Please try to nominate actual lawyers.
• Please try to nominate lawyers who are still living (RIP, Justice Ginsburg).
• Please submit all nominations via email, with this exact subject line: “Lawyer of the Year 2020.”

Let the nominations begin! Please submit your nominations by SUNDAY, DECEMBER 20, at 11:59 p.m. (Eastern time). We look forward to reading your thoughts and insights on the potential candidates who will go on to vie for the title of Above the Law’s Lawyer of the Year for 2020.

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

People buy stocks for all sorts of reasons: Fundamental analysis. Black edge. Cult membership. Boredom. And, if you’re a truly sophisticated investor, like a major pension plan, because the company whose stock you’re buying promises that it is full to the brim with “integrity and honesty” and that its clients’ interests “always come first.”

Two weeks ago, I reported on the landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) that cannabidiol (CBD) derived from the entire hemp plant is not a narcotic under the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (the Single Convention); and thus, should be freely traded between European Union (EU) member states.

The same day that piece was published, the European Commission accepted the CJEU ruling and retracted its preliminary position on treating hemp-derived CBD and other extracts derived from the flowering tops of the Cannabis sativa L. plant as narcotics. This means that CBD ingestible products won’t be banned from the EU market and that European regulators have resumed the review of those existing CBD Novel Food Authorization applications.

Then, on December 2, 2020, the United Nations Commission for Narcotic Drugs (the CND) brought to a vote six recommendations made by World Health Organization (WHO) in 2019.

The Single Convention, an international treaty in which member countries pledge to ban the production and trade of certain drugs, including cannabis, except for medical and research purposes, categorizes drugs based on their possible harm versus medical utility. The Single Convention has four schedules: Schedules I and II are the main schedules, whereas Schedules III and IV are complementary schedules. Schedule IV is a stricter subset of Schedule I and includes substances considered to be the most harmful and with virtually no therapeutic value — this is in essence comparable to Schedule I of the U.S. Controlled Substance Act (the CSA).

Of the six WHO recommendations, only the proposal to remove cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes from Schedule IV of the Single Convention was approved by a close vote, passing 27 to 25, with the United States (the U.S.) and notable European nations in favor.

In a statement published before the December 2 vote, the U.S. explained its decision to vote in favor of removing medical cannabis from the most restrictive international schedule as follows:

“The vote of the United States to remove cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the Single Convention while retaining them in Schedule I is consistent with the science demonstrating that while a safe and effective cannabis-derived therapeutic has been developed, cannabis itself continues to pose significant risks to public health and should continue to be controlled under the international drug control conventions. Further, this action has the potential to stimulate global research into the therapeutic potential and public health effects of cannabis, and to attract additional investigators to the field, including those who may have been deterred by the Schedule IV status of cannabis.”

This statement is consistent and reflective of the fact that the market for the medical use of marijuana has exploded in the past decade, a growth that is expected to continue. Moreover, the 2020 U.S. election results revealed that many states, including conservative ones, have finally jumped on the cannabis bandwagon by legalizing the medical and recreational use of marijuana.

Despite this positive step forward in internationally recognizing the therapeutic values of cannabis and encouraging research and further legalization efforts, the vote in favor of removing medical cannabis from Schedule IV of the Single Convention was purely symbolic.

First, cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the international drug control system.

Second, following the vote, the U.S. circulated a proposed joint statement to other member countries that essentially stipulates that despite its removal from Schedule IV of the Single Convention, cannabis should nonetheless be heavily regulated:

“[C]annabis is properly subject to the full scope of international controls of the 1961 Single Convention, due in particular to the high rates of public health problems arising from cannabis use and the global extent of such problems, as identified in the critical review by WHO.”

And third, the U.S. has yet to amend the CSA, which currently treats cannabis, specifically “marihuana,” as a Schedule I controlled substance. This fact reveals the symbolic meaning of the vote because member countries are now free to decide whether to revise their national classification of cannabis to match their decision to remove the plant from Schedule IV of the Single Convention.

Although the recommendation to reclassify cannabis was the focus and purportedly the most debated issue that member countries debated, the remaining five proposals that failed to pass are worth mentioning. These recommendations included:

• Recommendation 5.2: Add dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9 THC) to Schedule I of the 1961 Convention (Recommendations 5.3 and 5.6 were tied to Recommendation 5.2, and thus were rejected without a vote.)
• Recommendation 5.4: Delete “extracts and tinctures of cannabis” from Schedule I of the 1961 Convention. According to the WHO, this recommendation was solely intended to eliminate a duplicity and did not seek “to decrease the level of control of any cannabis-related substance or narrow the scope of control.”
• Recommendation 5.5: Exempt CBD preparations with less than 0.2% THC from international control. This recommendation was drafted in an ambiguous way and failed to pass on technical issues. The U.S. cited “legal and procedural grounds” to explain its vote, rather than an actual belief that CBD should be controlled by international drug conventions:

We do not dispute the scientific basis for the recommendation. Cannabidiol has not demonstrated abuse potential, and it is not our position that cannabidiol should be or is under the control of the international drug conventions … We look forward to continuing the conversation around this important issue within the CND.

So while not a complete win, the U.S. and other countries have made it clear that their votes against Recommendations 5.2 through 5.5 did not stem from a general anti-cannabis posture. In fact, their statements reveal they wish for the continued developments of cannabis reforms on an international scale. And while the vote in favor of removing cannabis from its current international Schedule IV status does not go far enough, it reveals the first step in a gradual trend of change, so that alone is enough cause to celebrate.

---

Nathalie practices out of Harris Bricken’s Portland office and focuses on the regulatory framework of hemp-derived CBD (“hemp CBD”) products. She is an authority on FDA enforcement, Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and other laws and regulations surrounding hemp and hemp CBD products. She also advises domestic and international clients on the sale, distribution, marketing, labeling, importation and exportation of these products. Nathalie frequently speaks on these issues and has made national media appearances, including on NPR’s Marketplace. For two consecutive years, Nathalie has been selected as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine, an honor bestowed on only 2.5% of eligible Oregon attorneys.  Nathalie is also a regular contributor to her firm’s Canna Law Blog.

* A federal judge has certified a class action filed by peanut farmers alleging that companies conspired to depress the price of peanuts. Guess the farmers didn’t want to be paid “peanuts” for their crop… [Counter]

* Pinterest has settled a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by a former executive for $22.5 million. [CNN Business]

* Attorney General Bill Barr will resign his position next week. [New York Times]

* A probe into Hunter Biden’s taxes is purportedly complicating Joe Biden’s search for an Attorney General. [Politico]

* A prominent Los Angeles attorney, who was involved in the case that inspired the movie Erin Brockovich, has had his assets frozen by a judge. This might be a good plot for a sequel… [Los Angeles Times]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.