A group of plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation over the 9/11 terror attacks pushed back Wednesday against other plaintiffs' proposal for a judgment against the Taliban, saying an underlying agreement between those other plaintiffs didn't appear to treat all victims fairly.
Plaintiffs in six member cases of the MDL who claim to have reached a "deal" that would smooth the way for the court to attach $3.5 billion in funds from Afghanistan to compensate victims of the 9/11 attacks have not revealed the specifics of that deal outside of their own circle, Michel Baumeister of Baumeister & Samuels PC said in a letter to the court.
. . .
Jerry Goldman of Anderson Kill PC, counsel in another of the member cases involved in the disputed deal, told Law360 on Wednesday that the deal was driven by the obligations of attorneys involved to "do our very best for our clients, understanding the facts and the applicable law," especially given the efforts by outside groups to "charge in and grab these same assets."
Disputes between counsel in cases weren't uncommon, Goldman said, and generally end up with "a better product that's better for our clients."
"We have a lot of very good attorneys on this case," he said. "And we all have differing ideas on a lot of things."
To read the full article, please click here.