$52M #TheyLied Libel Arbitration Award

Barron's Kenneth Corbin reported Friday:

A Finra [Financial Industry Regulatory Authority] arbitration panel has awarded a former partner [Daniel Michalow] with the hedge fund group D.E. Shaw $52 million in damages in a defamation case that stemmed from rumors of sexual misconduct that the arbitrators concluded were untrue….

The arbitrators … concluded flatly: "The panel specifically finds that claimant did not commit sexual misconduct." …

Michalow's ouster from the firm came in early 2018, at the height of the #MeToo movement. In a letter sent in May that year to David E. Shaw, the hedge fund's founder, Michalaw acknowledged that he had been "abrasive and intolerant" as a boss, and admitted to instances of inappropriate language and nonsexual physical contact with employees like hugging.

"All I have asked is that the firm say publicly what has repeatedly been told to my representatives and to me privately—that my departure from the firm is not related to sexual misconduct," Michalow wrote in 2018.

"The firm's bullying and threats against me over the last week, however, have revealed that the firm is so consumed with creating the appearance of supporting women that it is willing to cast false aspersions on me (and perpetuate false aspersions cast by others) and make me a scapegoat with a proverbial hanging in the town square," he added….

Thanks to Bruce Wessel for the pointer.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

Since the ouster, has the asshole made more or less money than he did at the firm? They may have done him a favor. In which case, he owes them money. He was insulted. That is worth about $10 in damages since he was a horrible human being. He proved that by his litigation. The false accuser and all those who believed her without physical evidence should get the lash. To deter.

We are sick of your lawyer rent seeking, and stealing from the public. This case is just a heist since the firm passes on all costs.

You traitor fucks always say, believe the vile feminist accuser. If women are equal, they should be able to handle the improper advances of a pig. You filthy lawyer fucks, ask Emmett Till about, believe the accuser.

[great Unknown]

“The panel specifically finds that claimant did not commit sexual misconduct.”

How do you prove a negative?

[Kazinski]

If all the allegations are disproved, then I’d say they proved he didn’t. You can’t assume or even speculate there could be unmade allegations.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good! Make them pay!

[grb]

I admit to being curious. At a cursory glance, this case involves damages for a fraudulent claim. I bet hundreds of cases match that description in the U.S, legal system each week. Why is this one worth noting here?

To be more specific, why does the VC religiously search for ANY legal case where allegations of sexual misconduct proved phony? I could see it if they also noted the other side of the ledger (charges proved warranted & justified) but they don’t. If fact, although there are many more examples of those cases, they rarely seem mentioned here.

Psychologically-speaking, what’s the fixation on “TheyLied” about?

[Michael P]

Pathologically speaking, what’s the fixation on #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen about?

(I know, that latter hashtag expired once Tara Reade started saying inconvenient things, but the sentiment mostly remains in its original selective-belief form.)

[Eugene Volokh]

grb: Well, I’m a scholar of libel law, so I write about libel cases, including but not limited to cases over supposedly false allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Have a look at the list of posts in the “libel” subcategory and you’ll see the range of libel cases I write about.

I don’t generally write about sexual assault cases, because I don’t study such cases, and I likewise don’t generally write about other sexual harassment cases (except when they involve interesting free speech claims). For instance, I don’t think you’ll see many posts from me about defense verdicts in sexual assault cases; those also involve allegations of sexual misconduct that were unproven, but the legal issues are completely different.

[grb]

Gottcha. What I saw as large amount of “TheyLied” posts was actually a small subset of libel posts in general. Point taken.

[Kazinski]

“Psychologically-speaking, what’s the fixation on “wrongthink” about?”