LEGAL : View Posts

New York, NY – 21st Century Fox today issued the following statement announcing it has settled Gretchen Carlson’s lawsuit.

“21st Century Fox is pleased to announce that it has settled Gretchen Carlson’s lawsuit. During her tenure at Fox News, Gretchen exhibited the highest standards of journalism and professionalism. She developed a loyal audience and was a daily source of information for many Americans. We are proud that she was part of the Fox News team. We sincerely regret and apologize for the fact that Gretchen was not treated with the respect and dignity that she and all of our colleagues deserve.”

Ms. Carlson issued the following statement:
“I am gratified that 21st Century Fox took decisive action after I filed my Complaint. I’m ready to move on to the next chapter of my life in which I will redouble my efforts to empower women in the workplace. I want to thank all the brave women who came forward to tell their own stories and the many people across the country who embraced and supported me in their #StandWithGretchen. All women deserve a dignified and respectful workplace in which talent, hard work and loyalty are recognized, revered and rewarded.”

About 21st Century Fox
21st Century Fox is the world’s premier portfolio of cable, broadcast, film, pay TV and satellite assets spanning six continents across the globe. Reaching more than 1.8 billion subscribers in approximately 50 local languages every day, 21st Century Fox is home to a global portfolio of cable and broadcasting networks and properties, including FOX, FX, FXX, FXM, FS1, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, FOX Sports, Fox Sports Network, National Geographic Channels, STAR India, 28 local television stations in the U.S. and more than 300 international channels; film studio Twentieth Century Fox Film; and television production studios Twentieth Century Fox Television and a 50% ownership interest in Endemol Shine Group. The Company also holds a 39.1% ownership interest in Sky, Europe’s leading entertainment company, which serves 22 million customers across five countries. For more information about 21st Century Fox, please visit www.21CF.com.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against German company Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG) and its Australian subsidiary, Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd (VGA) (together, Volkswagen), alleging they engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, made false or misleading representations and engaged in conduct liable to mislead the public in relation to diesel vehicle emission claims.

The ACCC alleges that between 2011 and 2015:
VWAG engaged in misleading conduct by installing and not disclosing the existence and operation of ‘defeat’ software, which controlled the operation of the vehicles’ exhaust gas recirculation system. The software caused the vehicles to produce lower nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions when subject to test conditions in a laboratory, but switched to a different mode under normal on-road driving conditions resulting in significantly higher NOx emissions being produced by the vehicles.

Both VGA and VWAG engaged in misleading conduct by representing that the vehicles complied with Australian and European standards and all Australian regulatory requirements when, because of the defeat software, that was not the case.

Using information provided by VWAG, VGA marketed the vehicles in Australia as being environmentally friendly, clean burning, low emission and compliant with stringent European standards when this was not the case under normal driving conditions.

“The ACCC alleges that Volkswagen engaged in multiple breaches of the Australian Consumer Law by concealing software in their vehicles to cheat emissions testing and misleading consumers about the vehicle’s compliance with standards and emission levels during on-road conditions,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“Consumers rightly expect that their vehicle’s emissions would operate as advertised during their day-to-day use and we allege that this was not the case with more than 57 000 vehicles sold in Australia by Volkswagen over a five-year period.”

“These allegations involve extraordinary conduct of a serious and deliberate nature by a global corporation and its Australian subsidiary misleading consumers and the Australian public. We expect higher standards of behaviour from all companies that supply to Australian consumers,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, corrective advertising, findings of fact and costs.

The Volkswagen branded vehicles covered by these proceedings are:
Amarok 2.0 litre – 2011 to 2012
Caddy 1.6 and 2.0 litre – 2010 to 2015
Eos 2.0 litre – 2009 to 2014
Golf 1.6 and 2.0 litre – 2009 to 2013
Jetta 1.6 and 2.0 litre – 2009 to 2015
Passat 2.0 litre – 2008 to 2015
Passat CC 2.0 litre – 2008 to 2012
Polo 1.6 litre – 2009 to 2014
Tiguan 2.0 litre – 2008 to 2015
CC 2.0 litre – 2011 to 2015
The Australian Design Rules implement international standards that regulate the emission of NOx from motor vehicles. NOx can cause respiratory illnesses and is particularly harmful to vulnerable consumers such as the young, the elderly, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions.

Background
In February 2016, VGA announced the implementation of a recall (initiated in October 2015) with rectification for affected Amarok vehicles. VGA is seeking approval from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development for rectification of other affected vehicles across all brands.

Private class actions seeking redress for consumers affected by this conduct are currently before the Federal Court in relation to Volkswagen, Audi and SKODA branded vehicles.

VWAG is the world’s second-largest car manufacturer by sales volume in the world.

The respect of human rights and the rule of law in Turkey in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt will be a crucial test for the state of the country’s democracy, said Foreign Affairs Committee MEPs on Tuesday. They assessed the results of last week’s fact-finding mission to Turkey by the committee chair and rapporteur and stressed the need for constant monitoring.

“Turkey has gone through a shock. There are indications that since 2013, the Gülen movement put into motion more than was realised. This is a group which over the decades has developed the style of a secret alliance,” said Foreign Affairs committee chair Elmar Brok (EPP, DE).

He confirmed that during the visit, the EP delegation condemned the coup attempt, but said that “even before the coup d’état in Turkey, developments as regards the freedom of opinion were not acceptable and took Turkey farther away from EU”.

Turkey rapporteur Kati Piri (S&D, NL) emphasised that the traumatic effect of the coup attempt on Turkish society should not be underestimated. She referred to the shelling of the Turkish parliament, the arrest of journalists and the killing of more than 200 civilians. But the aftermath of the coup attempt involved “the arrest of thousands of people […] who definitely were not involved in the coup”, she added. “The rule of law, including access to lawyers and fair trials, must be respected and this will be a crucial test for democracy in Turkey,” said Ms Piri.

Many MEPs agreed that the EU should monitor the rule of law and human rights situation in Turkey more closely, some asking for clearer evidence that the Gülen movement was behind the coup.

Even though some MEPs felt that “this” Turkey could not become a member of the EU, others suggested opening chapter 23 and 24 – dealing with justice, freedom and security – in order to facilitate dialogue with Turkey on democracy.

An important number of MEPs said that although they supported the EU-Turkey migration deal, the European Parliament could only give green light to the visa liberalisation, which is part of the deal, once all of the 72 benchmarks have been met.

CINCINNATI– The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG), through its wholly owned subsidiary The Gillette Company, today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York against Edgewell Personal Care, a manufacturer of shaving products. The lawsuit focuses on Edgewell’s 3-bladed private label razors, which are sold in major retail outlets throughout the U.S. The complaint alleges deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, unfair competition, and patent infringement by Edgewell.

The lawsuit targets false claims made against Gillette MACH3®, one of the most iconic and trusted brands ever built in the shaving category. It also challenges multiple patent violations.

“We invest heavily in innovation – and our scientists work tirelessly to provide men with one of the best, most reliable shaving experiences in the world,” said Deborah P. Majoras, chief legal officer of P&G. “When a competitor makes false and misleading claims against one of our products and infringes our patents, it’s unfair to consumers, and to our employees and shareholders, and we will challenge those violations.”

Gillette has been a clear innovation leader in the shaving category for over 100 years, revolutionizing the shaving experience time and again since the advent of the first safety razor. Gillette makes some of the most advanced shaving technology in the world including its recently launched Fusion ProShield razors, which provide lubrication before and after the blades to shield men’s faces from irritation while they shave. Gillette also offers a wide range of shaving solutions for consumers in every shaving segment, whether male or female, systems or disposables – and at every price point. Gillette razors are some of the most trusted razors available, used by over 750 million men globally and recommended by grooming experts, dermatologists and skin experts globally.

About Procter & Gamble
P&G serves consumers around the world with one of the strongest portfolios of trusted, quality, leadership brands, including Always®, Ambi Pur®, Ariel®, Bounty®, Charmin®, Crest®, Dawn®, Downy®, Fairy®, Febreze®, Gain®, Gillette®, Head & Shoulders®, Lenor®, Olay®, Oral-B®, Pampers®, Pantene®, SK-II®, Tide®, Vicks®, and Whisper®. The P&G community includes operations in approximately 70 countries worldwide. Please visit http://www.pg.com for the latest news and information about P&G and its brands.

NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced a $100 million, 44-state settlement with Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. for fraudulent and anticompetitive conduct involving the manipulation of U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate) and other benchmark interest rates. Benchmark interest rates affect financial instruments worth trillions of dollars and have a widespread impact on global markets and consumers because LIBOR may determine how much they will be paid on their investments. New York and Connecticut led the working group of State Attorneys General investigating Barclays.

“There has to be one set of rules for everyone, no matter how rich or how powerful, and that includes big banks and other financial institutions that engage in fraud or impair the fair functioning of financial markets,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “As a result of Barclays’ misconduct, government entities and not-for-profits were defrauded of funds that otherwise could have been used to benefit the people of New York.”

During the relevant time period, a panel of 16 banks made USD LIBOR submissions that were supposed to reflect borrowing rates in the interbank market. A daily LIBOR rate was calculated by averaging the middle eight submissions. The investigation found that, at times during the financial crisis period, roughly from 2007-2009, Barclays managers told LIBOR submitters to lower their LIBOR settings to avoid the appearance that Barclays was in financial difficulty and needed to pay more than some of its competitors to borrow money. The LIBOR submitters complied with the instructions and suppressed their LIBOR submissions. Also, from 2005 to 2007 and continuing at least into 2009, Barclays’ traders at times asked Barclays’ LIBOR submitters to change their LIBOR settings in order to benefit the traders’ positions, and the submitters often followed through on the requests, instead of setting LIBOR based on Barclays’ borrowing costs. Barclays also believed that other banks’ LIBOR submissions likewise did not reflect their true borrowing rates, and that therefore, published LIBOR did not reflect the cost of borrowing funds in the market, as it was supposed to do.

Government entities and not-for-profit organizations in New York and throughout the U.S., among others, were defrauded of millions of dollars when they entered into swaps and other financial contracts with Barclays without knowing that Barclays and other banks on the USD-LIBOR-setting panel were manipulating LIBOR—a price component — and, at times, colluding with other banks.

These entities with LIBOR-linked swaps and other investment contracts with Barclays will be notified if they are eligible to receive restitution from a settlement fund of $93.35 million. The balance of the settlement fund will be used to pay expenses of the investigation and for other uses consistent with state law.

Barclays is the first of several USD-LIBOR-setting panel banks under investigation by the State Attorneys General to resolve the claims against it, and Barclays has cooperated with the investigation from the outset. The Attorney General’s Office benefits from the information and evidence provided by corporations that choose to cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigations. Such cooperation can facilitate civil enforcement efforts, including restitution for victims of the offense.

Other states joining New York in the Barclays settlement include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin & Wyoming. The investigation into the conduct of several other USD LIBOR-setting panel banks is ongoing.

The New York Attorney General’s investigation into LIBOR manipulation is led by Antitrust Deputy Bureau Chief Elinor R. Hoffmann, Assistant Attorney General Emily Granrud, Volunteer Assistant Attorney General Alex Cohen and Legal Assistant Arlene Leventhal of the Antitrust Bureau, and Senior Enforcement Counsel Roger Waldman and Assistant Attorney General Desiree Cummings of the Investor Protection Bureau. Director of Economics, Guy Ben-Ishai, also provided valuable assistance. The Antitrust and Investor Protection Bureaus are part of the Economic Justice Division, which is led by Executive Deputy Attorney General for Economic Justice Manisha M. Sheth.

TAMPA, Fla. – A federal investigation into pay practices at a technology subsidiary of global banking giant Citigroup revealed the Florida company denied hundreds of employees’ overtime compensation and did not maintain time records, both violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

After a U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation of Citigroup Technology Inc. in Tampa, the employer has paid 882 employees a total of $1,870,009 in back wages and a civil penalty of $97,680 for repeat violations. The division’s investigation focused on CTI’s Anti-Money Laundering Division and its practice of classifying analysts improperly as administratively exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. By misapplying an exemption to these workers, CTI denied them overtime compensation when they worked more than 40 hours in a work week. The employer also failed to maintain required time records for these employees, as required by law.

“Employers must understand that simply paying an employee a salary does not necessarily mean the employee is not eligible for overtime,” said Wage and Hour Division Administrator Dr. David Weil. “The back wages and penalties paid in this case should cause other employers to take note, and to examine their pay practices. The Wage and Hour division will continue its vigorous enforcement of the law, including the overtime regulations, to ensure that workers take home every penny they have rightfully earned.”

CTI has paid the back wages, will comply with the FLSA going forward, and has signed an agreement with the department which requires them to review compliance for all of their remaining analyst positions and notify the Wage and Hour Division in writing if any back wages are due. The wages and penalty cover violations committed between Nov. 2, 2013 and Oct. 31, 2015.

The FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Job titles do not determine exempt status. For an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the department’s regulations. On May 18, 2016 the department announced a Final Rule updating these requirements. The effective date of the final rule is Dec. 1, 2016.

CTI’s parent company is Citigroup, a leading global bank with approximately 200 million customer accounts and business in more than 160 countries and jurisdictions.

Herbalife International of America, Inc., Herbalife International, Inc., and Herbalife, Ltd. have agreed to fully restructure their U.S. business operations and pay $200 million to compensate consumers to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the companies deceived consumers into believing they could earn substantial money selling diet, nutritional supplement, and personal care products.

In its complaint against Herbalife, the FTC also charged that the multi-level marketing company’s compensation structure was unfair because it rewards distributors for recruiting others to join and purchase products in order to advance in the marketing program, rather than in response to actual retail demand for the product, causing substantial economic injury to many of its distributors.

“This settlement will require Herbalife to fundamentally restructure its business so that participants are rewarded for what they sell, not how many people they recruit,” FTC Chairwoman Ramirez said. “Herbalife is going to have to start operating legitimately, making only truthful claims about how much money its members are likely to make, and it will have to compensate consumers for the losses they have suffered as a result of what we charge are unfair and deceptive practices.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Herbalife claims that people who participate can expect to quit their jobs, earn thousands of dollars a month, make a career-level income, or even get rich. But the truth, as alleged in the FTC complaint, is that the overwhelming majority of distributors who pursue the business opportunity earn little or no money.

For example, as stated in the complaint, the average amount that more than half the distributors known as “sales leaders” received as reward payments from Herbalife was under $300 for 2014. According to a survey Herbalife itself conducted, which is described in the complaint, Nutrition Club owners spent an average of about $8,500 to open a club, and 57 percent of club owners reported making no profit or losing money.

The small minority of distributors who do make a lot of money, according to the complaint, are compensated for recruiting new distributors, regardless of whether those recruits can sell the products they are encouraged to buy from Herbalife.

Finding themselves unable to make money, the FTC’s complaint alleges, Herbalife distributors abandon Herbalife in large numbers. The majority of them stop ordering products within their first year, and nearly half of the entire Herbalife distributor base quits in any given year.

The settlement announced today requires Herbalife to revamp its compensation system so that it rewards retail sales to customers and eliminates the incentives in its current system that reward distributors primarily for recruiting. It mandates a new compensation structure in which success depends on whether participants sell Herbalife products, not on whether they buy products.

For example:

The company will now differentiate between participants who join simply to buy products at a discount and those who join the business opportunity. “Discount buyers” will not be eligible to sell product or earn rewards.
Multi-level compensation that business opportunity participants earn will be driven by retail sales. At least two-thirds of rewards paid by Herbalife to distributors must be based on retail sales of Herbalife products that are tracked and verified. No more than one-third of rewards can be based on other distributors’ limited personal consumption.
Companywide, in order to pay compensation to distributors at current levels, at least 80 percent of Herbalife’s product sales must be comprised of sales to legitimate end-users. Otherwise, rewards to distributors must be reduced.
Herbalife is prohibited from allowing participants to incur the expenses associated with leasing or purchasing premises for “Nutrition Clubs” or other business locations before completing their first year as a distributor and completing a business training program.
Under the order, Herbalife will pay for an Independent Compliance Auditor (ICA) who will monitor the company’s adherence to the order provisions requiring restructuring of the compensation plan. The ICA will be in place for seven years and will report to the Commission, which shall have authority to replace the ICA if necessary.

The settlement also prohibits Herbalife from misrepresenting distributor’s earnings potential or likely earnings. The order specifically prohibits Herbalife from claiming that members can “quit their job” or otherwise enjoy a lavish lifestyle.

In addition, the order imposes a $200 million judgment against Herbalife to provide consumer redress, including money for consumers who purchased large quantities of Herbalife products (such as many Nutrition Club owners, among others) and lost money. Information on the FTC’s redress program will be announced at a later date.

The Commission votes authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order, and to issue a Statement of the Commission, were 3-0. The complaint and the stipulated final order will be filed shortly in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final injunctions/orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about consumer topics and file a consumer complaint online or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357). Like the FTC on Facebook (link is external), follow us on Twitter (link is external), read our blogs and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

The Department of Justice announced today that Deloitte Consulting LLP (Deloitte) has agreed to pay $11.38 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it submitted false claims under a General Services Administration (GSA) contract. Deloitte is a nationwide consulting company headquartered in New York City.

“Contractors are expected to deal fairly with federal agencies when receiving taxpayer funds,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “As this settlement demonstrates, we will take action against those who knowingly fail to live up to the terms of their government contracts.”

In 2000, GSA awarded Deloitte a contract for the provision of information technology services. The contract required Deloitte to reduce the prices it charged the government if it offered lower prices to specific commercial customers during the course of the contract. This settlement resolves allegations that between 2006 and 2012, Deloitte failed to comply with the price reductions clause in its contract, resulting in government customers paying more for Deloitte’s services than comparable commercial customers.

“American taxpayers deserve fair deals and prices from GSA contractors,” said GSA Inspector General Carol Fortine Ochoa. “I appreciate the hard work and dedication that led to this significant recovery.”

This case was handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the GSA Office of Inspector General.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

Today we announced a settlement in two important class-action lawsuits: O’Connor (California) and Yucesoy (Massachusetts). The key issue at stake in both cases is whether drivers using the Uber app should be classified as independent contractors or employees.

As part of this settlement, which covers all classification claims involving Uber in California and Massachusetts, the two sides have agreed that:

Drivers will remain independent contractors, not employees;
Uber will pay $84 million to the plaintiffs. There will be a second payment of $16 million if Uber goes public and our valuation increases one and a half times from our December 2015 financing valuation within the first year of an IPO;
Uber will provide drivers with more information about their individual rating and how it compares with their peers. Uber will also introduce a policy explaining the circumstances under which we deactivate drivers in these states from using the app; and
We will work together to create a driver’s association in both states. Uber will help fund these two associations and meet them quarterly to discuss the issues that matter most to drivers.
Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Today, while the number of drivers using our app has grown dramatically, their reasons for doing so haven’t changed. In the U.S. almost 90 percent say they choose Uber because they want to be their own boss. Drivers value their independence—the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours.

That’s why we are so pleased that this settlement recognizes that drivers should remain as independent contractors, not employees. As one driver told the court: “I’ve been an employee and an employer, and I’ve also been an independent contractor. I know the difference between these things. With Uber, I’m an independent contractor. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.” As another said: “I wouldn’t even want to be an Uber employee. I would quit if they tried to make me an employee, because I value my freedom as an independent contractor too much.”

That said, as Uber has grown—over 450,000 drivers use the app each month here in the U.S.—we haven’t always done a good job working with drivers. For example, we don’t have a policy explaining when and how we bar drivers from using the app, or a process to appeal these decisions. At our size that’s not good enough. It’s time to change.

So today we’ve published a driver deactivation policy for the first time. It will apply across the United States, and our goal is to roll out similar policies globally over time. You can read it in English, Spanish, Mandarin and Arabic, with more languages to follow.

It’s incredibly important that when people use Uber, they have a great experience—one that is safe, reliable, convenient and a good value. Otherwise, fewer passengers will use the app over time, which is bad for everyone. The policy explains why drivers are deactivated, the warnings we give and the circumstances in which drivers can use the app again.

Sometimes it’s clear that a driver shouldn’t be allowed on our platform: we permanently deactivate drivers who are violent, drink and drive, or refuse someone a ride because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation (it happens, sadly). But what if a driver’s rating declines due to poor driving or a smelly car? (And it’s not just bad smells that cause problems—we do get complaints about too much Febreze.) In those cases we let the driver know that there’s an issue and, if things don’t improve, we deactivate their account. We’re also working with a number of companies to provide affordable quality improvement courses.

As part of this settlement, Uber has agreed not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline trips when they are logged into the app. If too many drivers decline the rides we send their way, it undermines the reliability of the service for riders. But we understand that drivers need breaks, and sometimes things come up—maybe a kid has gotten sick at school. When drivers aren’t available, we’d just ask they turn off the app. And where drivers do have low acceptance rates—perhaps because they are multitasking at home—we will alert them to the issue. If things don’t pick up, we may log them out of the app for a limited period of time.

Uber has become an important part of many drivers’ lives, whether they drive all week or for a couple of hours to help pay the bills. So we’ve agreed to create an appeals process in California and Massachusetts for drivers who disagree with these decisions. In fact, we’ve been working on a pilot in Seattle for the last few months, which includes having other drivers hear these appeals. Our hope is that this kind of peer review process will improve transparency and accountability and give drivers an additional voice. If this approach is successful, we’ll look at rolling it out across the U.S.

Uber is a new way of working: it’s about people having the freedom to start and stop work when they want, at the push of a button. As we’ve grown we’ve gotten a lot right—but certainly not everything. This new deactivation policy is an important step forward when it comes to working with drivers. But there’s more to do, which is why I’m excited about some other improvements we have planned for the not too distant future. Stay tuned.

Travis Kalanick
CEO and Co-Founder

NEW YORK, NY, — The Authors Guild expressed its disappointment with today’s U.S. Supreme Court order denying review of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Authors Guild v. Google, a copyright infringement case originally filed in 2005. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case leaves standing the Second Circuit’s unprecedented expansion of the fair use doctrine—holding that Google’s copying and providing access to some 4 million copyrighted books for profit-making purposes was a fair use. With only seven justices voting whether or not to grant review (Justice Kagan recused herself), the petition faced an uphill battle to gain the four votes necessary for a grant of review.

“Today authors suffered a colossal loss,” said Authors Guild president Roxana Robinson. “We filed the class action lawsuit against Google in September 2005 because, as we stated then, ‘Google’s taking was a plain and brazen violation of copyright law.’ We believed then and we believe now that authors should be compensated when their work is copied for commercial purposes.”

In its October 2015 decision, the Second Circuit expanded copyright law’s fair use defense to allow Google’s unauthorized copying and scanning of millions of books to enrich its natural language search and translation services, as well as to create its Google Books service. Google Books, a service created from the book scanning project, allows users to search the texts and see excerpts from the books. After a decade of litigation, the Second Circuit found that Google’s use of the books without compensation was “fair,” because the search engine’s “primary intended beneficiary is the public.”

“Blinded by the public benefit arguments, the Second Circuit’s ruling tells us that Google, not authors, deserves to profit from the digitization of their books,” said Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild. “The Second Circuit misunderstood the importance of emerging online markets for books and book excerpts. It failed to comprehend the very real potential harm to authors resulting from its decision.”

“The price of this short-term public benefit may well be the future vitality of American culture,” continued Rasenberger. “Authors are already among the most poorly paid workers in America; if tomorrow’s authors cannot make a living from their work, only the independently wealthy or the subsidized will be able to pursue a career in writing, and America’s intellectual and artistic soul will be impoverished.”

Robinson added, “The denial of review is further proof that we’re witnessing a vast redistribution of wealth from the creative sector to the tech sector, not only with books, but across the spectrum of the arts.”

The underlying issue—expansion of fair use in the digital age—remains in need of resolution, the Guild maintains. “We trust that the Supreme Court will soon hear a similar fair use case and support the principle that authors should be compensated for digital uses of their work,” said Robinson.

Fair use law has undergone an unprecedented expansion in recent years, tipping the scales in favor of technology owners over copyright holders. Rasenberger added, “Copyright law is intended to encourage and protect creative works of authorship, yet this new court-made doctrine favors new technologies over copyright’s incentives to create new works of authorship. The Supreme Court needs to step in and clarify that fair use is part of copyright law’s “engine of free expression”—that it is intended to promote new authorship, not new technologies for accessing existing content.”

Following the Supreme Court’s order, the Guild vowed to remain vigilant to ensure that the Second Circuit’s ruling is not taken as carte blanche for unfettered digitization of books. “The Second Circuit decision took pains to highlight that fair use was found based on the strict display restrictions and security measures currently employed by Google,” said Authors Guild general counsel Jan Constantine. “We’ll continue to monitor Google and its library partners to ensure these standards are met, as we will take appropriate action to ensure that fair use isn’t abused.”

The Guild announced that it is actively working with other organizations to create market-based solutions for collective licensing of books from authors. Collective licensing would eliminate unnecessary transaction costs for mass copying-and-display projects like Google Books, for example, and would also allow full e-books, not just excerpts, to be made available for reading.

“The Guild’s commitment to this case over these last ten years has ensured that creators’ rights have remained at the heart of the conversation about the role of content in the digital age,” added Constantine. “The fact that Congress held hearings on the issue of mass digitization, and that the Copyright Office is actively studying a potential solution, is a direct result of the Authors Guild’s persistence.”

Robinson expressed gratitude for the support the Guild has received. “The Authors Guild thanks all of its many, many supporters throughout this case, including those who made our Supreme Court petition possible by helping to fund it. We will continue to fight with you to make sure we protect copyright law and the creative arts in America and throughout the world.”

Yemen is now at a critical crossroads, the United Nations Security Council heard today from the UN special envoy for the country, with one path leading to peace while the other can only worsen the security and humanitarian situation.

“This briefing comes on the eve of the next round of face-to-face talks in Kuwait, where I hope the parties will come to an agreement on a clear way to end the violence and devastation in Yemen,” Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, the UN Special Envoy for Yemen, told the 15-member Council.

“The cessation of hostilities began at midnight on 10 April and I hope it will provide a conducive environment for the upcoming talks, offer the opportunity for expanded humanitarian assistance and provide a rare ray of hope for Yemenis’ longing for a return to peace,” he added.

The talks will commence on 18 April and aim to reach a comprehensive agreement, to end the conflict and allow the resumption of inclusive political dialogue in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 2216 (2015) and other relevant resolutions.

Meanwhile, in the last round of peace talks which took place in Switzerland, a committee was established – the De-escalation and Coordination Committee (DCC) – to prevent further violations and avoid any military escalation.

“The agreement on the cessation of hostilities also created local levels of support. The Government of Yemen and Ansar Allah have nominated local committees in militarily contested areas to work with the DCC and ensure better compliance with the cessation of hostilities,” the envoy indicated, adding that unfortunately, most of the local committees are not yet fully functional but should be in the coming days.

Despite a discernible decrease in the level of military violence in most parts of the country during the first days of the cessation of hostilities, Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed told the Security Council there have also been a worrying number of serious violations particularly in al-Jawf, Amran, Mareb and Taiz.

“Fighting in Taiz continues to cause civilian casualties and I am concerned that a spiral of escalation could threaten the success of the peace process,” he warned. “However, the recent events over the last weeks at the same time have given me hope. I would like to acknowledge the courage displayed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Ansarallah by accepting to settle border disputes.”

He said both parties confirmed that these agreements pave the way for the general cessation of hostilities in Yemen. “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has supported both the government of Yemen and the Houthis to sign a landmark agreement aimed at supporting the cessation of hostilities and the work of the De-Escalation, Coordination Committee and Local De-Escalation Committees and supports the role of the United Nations.”

Calling on all parties to support the important work which humanitarian agencies are carrying out, Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed underlined that humanitarians will continue doing their best to deliver assistance to those in need and negotiate sustained access to hard-to-reach areas.

Briefing on these efforts, the Assistant Secretary-General of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Kyung-wha Kang, informed the Council that more than 6,400 people have now been killed, and over 30,500 injured. She said displacement has spiked, with some 2.8 million people now forced from their homes.

“Livelihoods have been ravaged,” Ms. Kang warned. “Some 14.1 million people now need help accessing adequate healthcare as a result of a year of intensified conflict. Lack of supplies, medicines, electricity, fuel for generators, and staff or equipment, have caused health services to decline across the country. Entire governorates have been engulfed in relentless violence.”

This includes locations such as Taiz where intensified fighting in and around Taiz city since mid-March has left scores of people dead and wounded, and also significantly hampered relief work.

“This paints a very bleak picture, but there is some cause for very cautious optimism,” she continued. “The cessation of hostilities is bringing calm to many areas of the country, reducing the crippling violence that has devastated these communities.”

Humanitarian organizations have also begun to respond in areas that were previously difficult to access, but despite these efforts, Ms. Kang told the Council that vital operations continue to be hampered by a variety of bureaucratic impediments, principally by the authorities on the ground.

Concluding her remarks, she said OCHA maintains the hope that the parties to this conflict will choose the only path to a solution – negotiation and dialogue – “no matter how challenging that path may seem.”

This morning we filed a new lawsuit in federal court against the United States government to stand up for what we believe are our customers’ constitutional and fundamental rights – rights that help protect privacy and promote free expression. This is not a decision we made lightly, and hence we wanted to share information on this step and why we are taking it.

An issue of fundamental rights
We believe that with rare exceptions consumers and businesses have a right to know when the government accesses their emails or records. Yet it’s becoming routine for the U.S. government to issue orders that require email providers to keep these types of legal demands secret. We believe that this goes too far and we are asking the courts to address the situation.

To be clear, we appreciate that there are times when secrecy around a government warrant is needed. This is the case, for example, when disclosure of the government’s warrant would create a real risk of harm to another individual or when disclosure would allow people to destroy evidence and thwart an investigation. But based on the many secrecy orders we have received, we question whether these orders are grounded in specific facts that truly demand secrecy. To the contrary, it appears that the issuance of secrecy orders has become too routine.

The urgency for action is clear and growing. Over the past 18 months, the U.S. government has required that we maintain secrecy regarding 2,576 legal demands, effectively silencing Microsoft from speaking to customers about warrants or other legal process seeking their data. Notably and even surprisingly, 1,752 of these secrecy orders, or 68 percent of the total, contained no fixed end date at all. This means that we effectively are prohibited forever from telling our customers that the government has obtained their data.

We believe these actions violate two of the fundamental rights that have been part of this country since its founding. These lengthy and even permanent secrecy orders violate the Fourth Amendment, which gives people and businesses the right to know if the government searches or seizes their property. They also violate the First Amendment, which guarantees our right to talk to customers about how government action is affecting their data. The constitutional right to free speech is subject only to restraints narrowly tailored to serve compelling governmental interests, a standard that is neither required by the statute being applied nor met by the government in practice here.

An issue with important practical consequences
The issue also has practical implications, and it’s important to consider them.

First, the issue has vital practical ramifications given the evolution of technology. Before the digital age, individuals and businesses stored their most sensitive correspondence and other documents in file cabinets and desk drawers. As computers became prevalent, users moved their materials to local computers and on-premises servers, which continued to remain within a user’s physical possession and control. In both eras, the government had to give notice when it sought a warrant to seize private information and communications, except in the rarest of circumstances.

Cloud computing has spurred a profound change in the storage of private information. Today, individuals increasingly keep their emails and documents on remote servers in data centers – in short, in the cloud. But the transition to the cloud does not alter people’s expectations of privacy and should not alter the fundamental constitutional requirement that the government must – with few exceptions – give notice when it searches and seizes private information or communications.

The same is true for businesses large and small. In the past, when a business’ email server was housed in its own building, the government by definition had to give notice in order to enter the building or otherwise require the business to produce an employee’s emails. Now businesses actively are migrating their information technology infrastructure to servers hosted by cloud service providers. In this new context, the government’s secrecy orders forbid cloud service providers from letting businesses know that the government has obtained their data. Not surprisingly, business customers regularly convey to us their strong desire to know when the government is obtaining their data. And not surprisingly, they want the opportunity for their own lawyers to review the situation and help decide whether to turn over information or contest the issue in court.

In 2013 we committed publicly to challenging individual secrecy orders for legitimate business customers, given our belief that the government can often obtain the information it needs from the headquarters of a business without notifying a specific individual there who is under investigation. In some cases we’ve convinced the government to redirect its request to our business customers. In other cases we’ve litigated the issue, and, in one recent situation, the government argued that we should be held in contempt for refusing to turn over email until a court ruled on the secrecy issue. Fortunately, we prevailed on the contempt issue in that case. But as we’ve monitored requests over time, we’ve concluded that this issue is recurring and needs to be considered in the context of the broader constitutional rights that are at stake.

It’s also important to consider the issue in the practical context of government investigations. Even if there is a solid basis for secrecy at the beginning of an investigation, circumstances can change. The government may drop the investigation or may take some step that alerts an individual to its existence. Yet even then these lengthy or permanent secrecy orders prevent cloud service providers from discussing with the customer the fact that his or her emails were accessed.

An issue that calls for a principled solution
Whenever we raise concerns such as these, we try to couple our focus on the problem with some suggestions for possible solutions. We definitely appreciate that we do not have all the answers and that others may offer better ideas than we have thought about so far. But we believe it’s important to help think constructively about possible steps forward.

While today’s lawsuit is important, we believe there’s an opportunity for the Department of Justice to adopt a new policy that sets reasonable limitations on the use of these types of secrecy orders. Congress also has a role to play in finding and passing solutions that both protect people’s rights and meet law enforcement’s needs. If the DOJ doesn’t act, then we hope that Congress will amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to implement reasonable rules. In fact, secrecy provisions in ECPA today are out of step with other U.S. laws that contain clearer limitations on secrecy provisions and allow law enforcement flexibility for extensions.

If policymakers update the rules governing secrecy orders, we hope they will be guided by three principles that we think are important for our customers and for law enforcement. First, transparency: People have a right to know as soon as reasonably possible when the government serves a provider with a legal demand to access their records or emails. Providers like Microsoft have a right to inform customers and be transparent with the public. Second, digital neutrality: Customers generally shouldn’t be entitled to less notice just because they have moved their emails to the cloud. And finally, necessity: Secrecy orders should be adapted to what’s necessary for the investigation, and no more. If there’s a good reason to justify a secrecy order initially and that reason continues, prosecutors should be able to extend the order based on necessity. If not, we should be able to tell our customer what happened.

As I noted at the beginning, we don’t take lightly this type of action – filing a lawsuit against any government. We only do so when we believe that critical principles and important practical consequences are at stake. Today’s lawsuit is the fourth public case we’ve filed against the U.S. government related to our customers’ right to privacy and transparency. The first lawsuit resulted in a good and appropriate settlement allowing us to disclose the number of legal requests we receive. The second resulted in the government withdrawing a National Security Letter after we challenged a non-disclosure order attached to the letter. The third, a challenge to a U.S. search warrant for customer email in Ireland belonging to a non-US citizen, is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Today’s suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, can be found here.

Ultimately, we view this case as similar to the other three that we have filed. It involves the fundamental right of people and businesses to know when the government is accessing their content and our right to share this information with them.

About the Author

Brad Smith
President and Chief Legal Officer

Brad Smith is Microsoft’s president and chief legal officer. Smith plays a key role in representing the company externally and in leading the company’s work on a number of critical issues including privacy, security, accessibility, environmental sustainability and digital inclusion, among others.

The Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today seeking to block Halliburton Company’s proposed acquisition of Baker Hughes Inc., alleging that the transaction threatens to eliminate competition, raise prices and reduce innovation in the oilfield services industry.

The department filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, where both companies are incorporated. The complaint alleges that the acquisition – which the companies valued at $34 billion when announcing it – would combine two of the three largest oilfield services companies in the United States and the world, eliminating important head-to-head competition in markets for 23 products or services used for on- and off-shore oil exploration and production in the United States.

“The proposed deal between Halliburton and Baker Hughes would eliminate vital competition, skew energy markets and harm American consumers,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. “Our action makes clear that the Justice Department is committed to vigorously enforcing our antitrust laws. In the days ahead, we will continue to stand up for fair deals and free markets, and for the American people we are privileged to serve.”

“This transaction is unprecedented in the breadth and scope of competitive overlaps and antitrust issues it presents,” said Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer of the department’s Antitrust Division. “Halliburton and Baker Hughes are two of the three largest integrated oilfield service companies across the globe, and they compete to invent and sell products and services that are critical to energy exploration and production. We need to maintain meaningful competition in this important sector of our economy.”

During the department’s investigation, Halliburton proposed to remedy the significant harmful effects of the transaction by divesting a mix of assets extracted from certain business lines of the two companies. According to the complaint, the proposed divestitures would not include full business units but rather would be limited to certain assets, with the merged firm holding onto important facilities, employees, contracts, intellectual property, and research and development resources that would put the buyer of those assets at a competitive disadvantage. The proposed divestures mostly would allow Halliburton to retain the more valuable assets from either company while selling less significant assets to a third party. The complaint further alleges that this divesture would not replicate the substantial competition between the two rivals that exists today.

Halliburton is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston. Founded in 1919, Halliburton is the largest provider of services and products to the oil and gas industry in the United States. It has operations in approximately 80 countries and earned revenue of $23.6 billion in 2015.

Baker Hughes is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston. It was formed in 1987 with the merger of Baker International and Hughes Tool Company, both founded over 100 years ago. The third-largest provider of oilfield services in the world, Baker Hughes operates in more than 80 countries and earned revenue of $15.7 billion in 2015.

Today, the President announced 61 new grants of commutation to individuals serving years in prison under outdated and unduly harsh sentencing laws. More than one-third of them were serving life sentences. To date, the President has now commuted the sentences of 248 individuals – more than the previous six Presidents combined. And, in total, he has commuted 92 life sentences.

Underscoring his commitment not just to clemency, but to helping those who earn their freedom make the most of their second chance, the President will meet today with commutation recipients from both his Administration and the previous administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. During the meeting, the commutation recipients will discuss their firsthand experiences with the reentry process and ways that the process can be strengthened to give every individual the resources he or she needs to transition from prison and lead a fulfilling, productive life.

Building on this conversation, tomorrow the White House will host a briefing titled Life After Clemency with advocates, academics, and Administration officials to discuss and share ideas on the President’s clemency initiative and ways to improve paths to reentry. In addition to officials from the White House and the Department of Justice, experts, academics, and commutation recipients will share their expertise and insights on returning to society after years behind bars. To watch the briefing live, tune in tomorrow, Thursday, March 31, at 2:00 PM EDT at www.whitehouse.gov/live.

Throughout the remainder of his time in office, the President is committed to continuing to issue more grants of clemency as well as to strengthening rehabilitation programs. As he wrote in a letter to the 61 individuals receiving clemency today:

“The power to grant pardons and commutations… embodies the basic belief in our democracy that people deserve a second chance after having made a mistake in their lives that led to a conviction under our laws.”

And, he cautioned those receiving clemency that what they do with this unexpected opportunity reflects not only on each individual person, but also on all those still behind bars who are seeking that same shot at a new life.

Despite the progress we have made, it is important to remember that clemency is nearly always a tool of last resort that can help specific individuals, but does nothing to make our criminal justice system on the whole more fair and just. Clemency of individual cases alone cannot fix decades of overly punitive sentencing policies. So while we continue to work to resolve as many clemency applications as possible – and make no mistake, we are working hard at this – only broader criminal justice reform can truly bring justice to the many thousands of people behind bars serving unduly harsh and outdated sentences.

Fortunately, we are at a unique moment in history where such reform is possible. For the first time in a quarter century, Americans across the board acknowledge that the criminal justice system is broken and needs to change. This is no longer a partisan issue: Republicans and Democrats agree that many sentencing laws are outdated and unnecessarily harsh. We are continuing to work in bipartisan fashion to secure those much-needed, long-overdue reforms in Congress so that thousands more deserving individuals may benefit from the second-chance that these individuals earned today.

The United Nations and the League of Arab States today signed an agreement to strengthen collaboration on prevention of conflict-related sexual violence in the Arab region.

The agreement was signed in Cairo, Egypt, by the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Zainab Hawa Bangura, and Nabil el-Araby, Secretary-General of the League of the Arab States. It is meant to form the foundation on which to mobilize political commitment and collaborate in combatting rape and other instances of conflict-related sexual violence, particularly in Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

“This framework of cooperation gives us a platform to join and reinforce our efforts, and together build a comprehensive response in the security, justice and service sectors,” said Special Representative Bangura, who is also a UN Under-Secretary-General.

That will include deeper information sharing and analysis, training and capacity building, and providing medical and psychosocial services to survivors and their families, according to a press release from the Office of the Special Representative.

The agreement also cites the role of civil society, as well as religious and traditional leaders “to help shift the stigma of sexual violence from the victims to the perpetrators” and to ensure that survivors and the potential children they bear as a result of the crimes, are accepted back into their communities, the Office said.

“Ultimately it is my hope that the focused engagement of the Arab League will catalyze greater national leadership, ownership and responsibility among its member countries to protect vulnerable women, children and men from sexual violence,” Mrs. Bangura added.

While in Egypt, the UN Special Representative met with Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb, whose title of Grand Imam of Al Azhar makes him one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islamic thought.

During their meeting, Mrs. Bangura received assurance of the Sheikh’s commitment to speaking out against conflict-related sexual violence, particularly in the context of acts by extremist groups such as ISIL and Boko Haram, according to the press release.

“This is an affront to the most sacred and fundamental tenets of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance,” Mrs. Bangura said, referring to what she calls “perverting” of Islam by groups that attempt to give religious justification for sexual slavery and other acts of violence against women and girls.

The Federal Trade Commission has charged that Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. deceived consumers with the advertising campaign it used to promote its supposedly “clean diesel” VWs and Audis, which Volkswagen fitted with illegal emission defeat devices designed to mask high emissions during government tests. The FTC is seeking a court order requiring Volkswagen to compensate American consumers who bought or leased an affected vehicle between late 2008 and late 2015, as well as an injunction to prevent Volkswagen from engaging in this type of conduct again.

In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC alleges that during this seven-year period Volkswagen deceived consumers by selling or leasing more than 550,000 diesel cars based on false claims that the cars were low-emission, environmentally friendly, met emissions standards and would maintain a high resale value. The cars sold for an average price of approximately $28,000.

“For years Volkswagen’s ads touted the company’s ‘Clean Diesel’ cars even though it now appears Volkswagen rigged the cars with devices designed to defeat emissions tests,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “Our lawsuit seeks compensation for the consumers who bought affected cars based on Volkswagen’s deceptive and unfair practices.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Volkswagen promoted its supposedly “clean” cars through a high-profile marketing campaign that included Super Bowl ads, online social media campaigns, and print advertising, often targeting “environmentally-conscious” consumers.

For example, Volkswagen promotional materials repeatedly claimed that its “Clean Diesel” vehicles have low emissions, including that they reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 90 percent and have fewer such emissions than gasoline cars. In fact, the FTC’s complaint states that they emit up to 4,000 percent more than the legal limit of NOx — a dangerous pollutant that contributes to environmental harms and respiratory ailments.

The complaint alleges that Volkswagen also claimed that “Clean Diesel” vehicles met “stringent emission requirements,” were “50-state compliant,” and would maintain a high resale value. Yet, according to the FTC’s complaint, these claims were also false because without the illegally installed software, the “Clean Diesel” vehicles would not have passed federal emissions standards and the hidden defeat devices will significantly reduce the vehicles’ resale value.

The FTC also charged that Volkswagen provided the means and instrumentalities for others to deceive consumers, and that installing the emissions defeat devices was an unfair practice.

The affected vehicles include 2009 through 2015 Volkswagen TDI diesel models of Jettas, Passats, and Touareg SUVs, as well as TDI Audi models. The suggested sale prices for the affected vehicles ranged from approximately $22,000 for the least-expensive Volkswagen model with a 2.0-liter engine to approximately $125,000 for the most-expensive Audi model with 3.0-liter engine.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.

As one of the best appellate judges in the country, Chief Judge Merrick Garland is the most qualified person to immediately serve on the Supreme Court.

He currently serves as Chief Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C., a court to which he was confirmed with majority support from both parties in the U.S. Senate in 1997. Now presiding as Chief Judge, Judge Garland has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history. Born and raised in Illinois and a devoted family man, Judge Garland has dedicated his life to serving the American people, taking on some of the most difficult anti-terrorism cases in our nation’s history. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, he led the investigation and prosecution that ultimately brought Timothy McVeigh to justice. As a mentor to his law clerks and a tutor to elementary school children, he is a dedicated and compassionate public servant who conservatives and progressives praise for his rigorous intellect, his respect for the role of the judiciary, and his mastery of the law.

Here are some brief facts that give an overview of Chief Judge Garland’s record and credentials:

Oversaw some of the most important federal criminal cases in recent history, including the prosecutions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing as well as the government’s responses to the Unabomber and the Montana Freemen

Took steps as a government attorney to ensure proper respect for the rights of criminal defendants, helping develop policies that require prosecutors to conduct an individual assessment of each case when making charging decisions, rather than just charging with the most serious offense possible

Was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1997 with strong bipartisan support from a majority of both parties in the U.S. Senate

Distinguished himself as a jurist who decides every case based on what the law requires, stating, “The role of the court is to apply the law to the facts of the case before it”

Known as a meticulous jurist with a skill for building consensus, an approach that has earned him bipartisan support throughout his career

A new United Nations report on the human rights situation in South Sudan published today describes a multitude of horrendous violations in “searing detail,” in particular by Government forces, including cases of civilians burned alive or cut to pieces and a teenage girl being raped by ten soldiers.

Although all parties to the conflict have committed patterns of serious and systematic violence against civilians since fighting broke out in December 2013, the report says State actors bore the greatest responsibility during 2015, given the weakening of opposition forces.

The scale of sexual violence is particularly shocking, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) notes in a news release. In five months last year, from April to September, the UN recorded more than 1,300 reports of rape in just one of South Sudan’s ten states, namely oil-rich Unity.

“The scale and types of sexual violence – primarily by Government SPLA forces and affiliated militia – are described in searing, devastating detail, as is the almost casual, yet calculated, attitude of those slaughtering civilians and destroying property and livelihoods,” said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.

Women and girls are ‘commodity’
He said the quantity of rapes and gang-rapes described in the report must only be “a snapshot” of the real total, with women and girls being considered “a commodity” as soldiers moved through the villages. Although this is one of the most horrendous human rights situations in the world, it has been more or less “off the international radar,” he added.

The new report is the work of an assessment team sent by the High Commissioner to the world’s youngest country from October 2015 to January 2016.

Since 2013, all parties to the conflict have conducted, “attacks against civilians, rape and other crimes of sexual violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, abduction and deprivation of liberty, disappearance, including enforced disappearance, and attacks on UN personnel and peacekeeping facilities,” the report says.

Given the breadth and depth of the allegations, their gravity, consistency and recurrence and the similarities in their modus operandi, the report concludes there are reasonable grounds to believe the violations may amount to war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. Each time an area changed hands those in charge would try and kill or displace as many civilians as they could, based on their ethnic identity.

The report contains harrowing accounts of pro-opposition civilians killed by being burned alive, suffocated in containers, shot, hanged from trees or cut to pieces. One woman had been stripped naked and raped by five soldiers in front of her children on the roadside and then raped by more men in the bushes, only to return and find her children missing; another was tied to a tree after her husband was killed and had to watch her 15-year-old daughter being raped by ten soldiers.

Children have borne the brunt of the violence, being maimed, raped, recruited for hostilities and killed throughout this conflict, but there was a sharp increase in reported violations in 2015.

Also in 2015, at least seven journalists were killed and many activists arrested. “Civil society activists, human rights defenders, humanitarian actors, journalists and print media and even UN staff members have been the subject of threats, intimidation, harassment, detention and in some instances death by the Government,” the report says.

The report also highlights the considerable challenges to administering justice in South Sudan, citing “a chronic failure to ensure a modicum of accountability…with grants of amnesty or immunity being the norm.”

Recommendations
The report recommends that the Human Rights Council continue to monitor developments in the country and consider the establishment of a dedicated mechanism to report on progress towards accountability and on the human rights situation there.

The report also calls on the Transitional Government of National Unity – once established – to stop current violations and abuses of the rights of children, prevent their recurrence, eliminate sexual- and gender-based violence, promote and respect the role of civil society, and guarantee the freedoms of opinion and expression, and of peaceful assembly.

Briefing the press at UN Headquarters in New York, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Šimonović, said that the report goes beyond simply listing violations by highlighting the need to break the cycle of violence historically taking place.

One of the major problems is that “rape is accepted” in South Sudan, said Mr. Šimonović, who recently visited the country. “Rape is happening in the presence of family members and women are forced to march the street naked,” he added.

Stressing the importance of bringing perpetrators to justice, he said establishing a hybrid court consisting of domestic and foreign judges, as agreed in the August 2015 peace accord, is a good starting point for accountability.

David Marshall, coordinator of the UN human rights assessment mission to South Sudan, told the same briefing that the Government undertook a “scorched-earth” policy – a military tactic involving deliberate and usually widespread destruction of property and resources so that an invading enemy cannot use them. The military leaders who committed atrocities should not be part of the transitional Government, he said.

Today, President Obama announced his plan to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay once and for all — saying that keeping the prison open undermines our national security and stains our broader record on upholding the highest standards of rule of law. He made the case for why it’s time to change the course on Guantanamo:

“For many years, it has been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security—it undermines it. It’s counterproductive to our fight against terrorists, who use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit. It drains military resources, with nearly $450 million spent last year alone to keep it running and more than $200 million in additional costs needed to keep it open going forward. Guantanamo harms our partnerships with allies and other countries whose cooperation we need against terrorism.”
President Obama, February 23, 2016

In one of President Obama’s first acts as President, he took action to begin closing the prison facility. Since he took office, we’ve transferred 147 of its detainees, each under new, significant restrictions to keep them from returning to the battlefield.

Of the nearly 800 detainees once held at Guantanamo Bay, now just 91 remain.

Today, the Defense Department submitted a plan to Congress on closing the prison facility and dealing with the remaining group of detainees.

Here’s what the President laid out in the plan to close Guantanamo:
1. “We’ll continue to securely and responsibly transfer to other countries the 35 detainees already approved for transfer. This process involves extensive and careful coordination across our federal government to ensure that our national security interests are met when an individual is transferred to another country. We insist, for example, that foreign countries institute strong security measures.”

2. “We’ll accelerate the periodic reviews of remaining detainees to determine whether their continued detention is necessary. Our review board, including representatives from across government, will look at all relevant information, including current intelligence. If certain detainees no longer pose a continuing significant threat, they may be eligible for transfer to another country.”

3. “We’ll continue to use all legal tools to deal with the remaining detainees still held under law of war detention. Currently, 10 detainees are in some stage of the military commissions process—a process we reformed in my first year in office with bipartisan support from Congress. Still, these commissions are very costly and have resulted in years without a resolution. We’re therefore outlining additional changes to improve these commissions, which would require Congressional action.”

4. “We’re going to work with Congress to find a secure location in the United States to hold remaining detainees. These are detainees who are subject to military commissions, as well as those who cannot yet be transferred to other countries or who we’ve determined must continue to be detained because they pose a continuing significant threat. We are not identifying a specific facility today.”

The United States of America and the Russian Federation, as co-chairs of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and seeking to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis with full respect for the fundamental role of the United Nations, are fully determined to provide their strongest support to end the Syrian conflict and establish conditions for a successful Syrian-led political transition process, facilitated by the UN, in order to fully implement the Munich Statement of the ISSG on February 11th, 2016, UN Security Council Resolution 2254, the 2015 Vienna Statements and the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.

In this regard, and in furtherance of the February 11th decisions of the ISSG, the United States and Russia, as co-chairs of the ISSG and ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, announce the adoption on February 22, 2016, of the Terms for a Cessation of Hostilities in Syria attached as an Annex to this statement, and propose that the cessation of hostilities commence at 00:00 (Damascus time) on February 27, 2016. The cessation of hostilities is to be applied to those parties to the Syrian conflict that have indicated their commitment to and acceptance of its terms. Consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the statements of the ISSG, the cessation of hostilities does not apply to “Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council.

Any party engaged in military or para-military hostilities in Syria, other than “Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council will indicate to the Russian Federation or the United States, as co-chairs of the ISSG, their commitment to and acceptance of the terms for the cessation of hostilities by no later than 12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26, 2016. In order to implement the cessation of hostilities in a manner that promotes stability and protects those parties participating in it, the Russian Federation and the United States are prepared to work together to exchange pertinent information (e.g., aggregated data that delineates territory where groups that have indicated their commitment to and acceptance of the cessation of hostilities are active, and a focal point for each side, in order to ensure effective communication) and develop procedures necessary for preventing parties participating in the cessation of hostilities from being attacked by Russian Armed Forces, the U.S.-led Counter ISIL Coalition, the Armed Forces of the Syrian government and other forces supporting them, and other parties to the cessation of hostilities. Military actions, including airstrikes, of the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Armed Forces, and the U.S.-led Counter ISIL Coalition will continue against ISIL, “Jabhat al-Nusra,” and other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council. The Russian Federation and United States will also work together, and with other members of the Ceasefire Task Force, as appropriate and pursuant to the ISSG decision of February 11, 2016, to delineate the territory held by “Daesh,” “Jabhat al-Nusra” and other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council, which are excluded from the cessation of hostilities.

In order to promote the effective implementation of the cessation of hostilities, the ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, co-chaired by the United States and Russia, has been established under UN auspices, including political and military officials from the co-chairs and other Task Force members; the UN Office of the Special Envoy for Syria (OSE) serves as secretariat. The primary functions of the Task Force are, as provided in the ISSG Statement of February 11, to: a) delineate the territory held by “Daesh”, “Jabhat-al-Nusra” and other terrorist organizations designated by the United Nations Security Council; b) ensure communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions; c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and d) refer persistent non-compliant behavior by any of the parties to the ISSG Ministers or those designated by the Ministers to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the arrangements of the cessation of hostilities, and the protection it affords them.

The United States and Russia are prepared, in their capacities as co-chairs of the Ceasefire Task Force and in coordination with other members of the ISSG Ceasefire Task Force as appropriate, to develop effective mechanisms to promote and monitor compliance with the ceasefire both by the governmental forces of the Syrian Arab Republic and other forces supporting them, and the armed opposition groups. To achieve this goal and to promote an effective and sustainable cessation of hostilities, the Russian Federation and the United States will establish a communication hotline and, if necessary and appropriate, a working group to exchange relevant information after the cessation of hostilities has gone into effect. In addressing incidents of non-compliance, every effort should be made to promote communications among all parties to restore compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions, and non-forcible means should be exhausted whenever possible before resorting to use of force. The United States and Russia as co-chairs of ISSG Ceasefire Task Force will develop such further modalities and standard operating procedures as may be necessary to implement these functions.

The United States and the Russian Federation together call upon all Syrian parties, regional states and others in the international community to support the immediate cessation of violence and bloodshed in Syria and to contribute to the swift, effective and successful promotion of the UN-facilitated political transition process in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254, the February 11 Statement of the ISSG, the 2015 Vienna statements of the ISSG, and the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.

ANNEX

TERMS FOR CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN SYRIA

The nationwide cessation of hostilities is to apply to any party currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities against any other parties other than “Daesh”, “Jabhat al-Nusra”, or other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council.

The responsibilities of the Syrian armed opposition are set out in paragraph 1 below. The responsibilities of the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, and all forces supporting or associated with the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic are set out in paragraph 2 below.

1. To take part in the cessation of hostilities, armed opposition groups will confirm – to the United States of America or the Russian Federation, who will attest such confirmations to one another as co-chairs of the ISSG by no later than 12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26 2016 – their commitment to and acceptance of the following terms:

To full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously on December 18, 2015, ‑ including the readiness to participate in the UN-facilitated political negotiation process;

To cease attacks with any weapons, including rockets, mortars, and anti-tank guided missiles, against Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, and any associated forces;

To refrain from acquiring or seeking to acquire territory from other parties to the ceasefire;

To allow humanitarian agencies, rapid, safe, unhindered and sustained access throughout areas under their operational control and allow immediate humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need;

To proportionate use of force (i.e., no greater than required to address an immediate threat) if and when responding in self-defense.
2. The above-mentioned commitments will be observed by such armed opposition groups, provided that the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, and all forces supporting or associated with the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic have confirmed to the Russian Federation as co-chair of the ISSG by no later than 12:00 (Damascus time) on February 26, 2016 their commitment to and acceptance of the following terms:

To full implementation of UN Security Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously on December 18, 2015, including the readiness to participate in the UN-facilitated political negotiation process;

To cease attacks with any weapons, including aerial bombardments by the Air Force of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation, against the armed opposition groups (as confirmed to the United States or the Russian Federation by parties to the cessation of hostilities);

To refrain from acquiring or seeking to acquire territory from other parties to the ceasefire;

To allow humanitarian agencies, rapid, unhindered and sustained access throughout areas under their operational control and allow immediate humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need;

To proportionate use of force (i.e., no greater than required to address an immediate threat) if and when responding in self-defense.
The Russian Federation and the United States, as co-chairs of the ISSG and ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, are prepared to work together to ensure effective communications and develop procedures necessary for preventing parties participating in the cessation of hostilities from being attacked by Russian Armed Forces, the U.S.-led Counter ISIL Coalition, the Armed Forces of the Syrian government and other forces supporting them, and other parties to the cessation of hostilities.

All parties further commit to work for the early release of detainees, particularly women and children.

Any party can bring a violation or potential violation of the cessation of hostilities to the attention of the Task Force, either through the OSE or the co-chairs. The OSE and Co-Chairs will establish liaison arrangements with each other and the parties, and inform the public generally about how any party may bring a violation to the attention of the Task Force.

The United States and the Russian Federation as co-chairs confirm that the cessation of hostilities will be monitored in an impartial and transparent manner and with broad media coverage.