Latest news with #GordonSondland
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Miller Barondess Represents Former EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland in Landmark Legal Victory Against U.S. Government
WASHINGTON, April 01, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Former European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland and the U.S. government have settled a dispute over attorneys' fees incurred during Sondland's testimony before the U.S. Congress in the 2019 impeachment proceedings against President Trump. The parties previously notified the U.S. Court of Federal Claims of their agreement, and the case has been dismissed with prejudice. Ambassador Sondland is represented by Mark A. Barondess of Miller Barondess, LLP. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims heard compelling testimony at trial confirming the existence of an oral agreement between Sondland and former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo regarding the payment of Sondland's attorneys' fees arising from his testimony during the impeachment proceedings. Uncontradicted evidence at trial established that Sondland was denied any legal representation by the government in preparation for his historic, globally televised testimony. The case, Sondland v. United States, Fed. Cl., No. 21-cv-2083, is significant as a rare example of the government being bound to an oral agreement. While the government can be held liable for an oral contract under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), courts enforce such agreements only under very strict conditions and are generally reluctant to do so unless the facts are unusually compelling. Testimony at trial further revealed that the State Department had no established policy for covering legal fees for diplomats or other employees testifying before Congress until Sondland asserted his claim. The government subsequently enacted a policy capping legal fees at $300 per hour with a 120-hour limit. However, Sondland's legal fees amounted to approximately $1.8 million due to the scope and international significance of the proceedings. Following the trial and before closing arguments were scheduled, the government agreed to a seven-figure payment to settle Sondland's claims under the terms he originally proposed before trial. Judge Loren A. Smith stayed the case pending payment to Sondland. "Ambassador Sondland simply sought to hold the government accountable for the clear and unequivocal commitments made to him by former Secretary of State Pompeo and other State Department officials," said Mark Barondess. He further added, "We clearly proved the facts alleged in our Complaint at trial, and Ambassador Sondland is very pleased that the government recognized that." About Miller Barondess, LLP: Miller Barondess, LLP is a Los Angeles-based law firm that specializes in litigation, including trial, arbitration, and appellate proceedings in California and nationwide. The firm represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a wide range of sectors, including private equity, securities, financial services, intellectual property, patents, licensing and branding, technology and cybersecurity, real estate, healthcare, entertainment and music, sports, consumer products, insurance, retail, environmental, and government. With a reputation for winning bet-the-company litigation, the firm is frequently engaged to resolve pivotal issues before trial, and other law firms bring in Miller Barondess when their clients need a trial or appellate team. View source version on Contacts Media: Mark A. BarondessMiller Barondess, LLP+1 310-552-7574mbarondess@
Telegraph
01-04-2025
- Automotive
- Telegraph
Approving US-made cars would make UK roads less safe
New cars sold in Britain could become less safe if America gets its way in ongoing US-EU trade talks. Currently there's a chasm in safety standards between US-market vehicles and those approved for sale in Europe, which Britain is still aligned to for safety legislation. Although there's not currently much of an appetite for American-made cars in Britain, the US wants its vehicles to be declared 'equivalent' to ours in safety terms – despite them falling way short. Why is the safety of US-market cars an issue? Following President Donald Trump's directive that America should sell more cars abroad, the US and EU are currently in negotiations. The US believes the EU's stricter vehicle safety rules are simply a form of trade protectionism. US ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland said: 'If we sell you a vegetable or a car or a product, if it's safe to use in the US it should be deemed safe to use in the EU.' Are US vehicles safe? 'When it comes to protecting pedestrians and everyone else outside of vehicles, the gap between crash standards in the US and Europe is an ocean wide,' James Nix, vehicles policy manager for pressure group Transport & Environment (T&E) said. Dudley Curtis from the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) added: 'One long-standing issue is the design of the front end of vehicles. In America you don't have a pedestrian protection requirement. We've had these since 2003.' What safety equipment do US cars lack? There's a host of safety equipment we take for granted that isn't compulsory on US-market cars. At the very basic level, seatbelt reminders have been compulsory in cars sold in Europe since 2019. In the US, they are only required for the driver's seat. The Biden administration wanted them all-round in 2026-27 but experts think that's now unlikely to happen. Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) has been hailed as the greatest safety advance since the seatbelt as it slows a car automatically if it detects an impending impact. Since 2022 it must be fitted to every new car sold in the EU (and the UK). The US was due to make it compulsory in 2029 but the ETSC says the Trump government has suspended that. Cars sold this side of the Atlantic since 2022 must also have intelligent speed adaptation. This uses cameras and GPS to encourage drivers to stick to speed limits. Again, it's not compulsory in the US. Neither is fatigue monitoring or emergency calling, which enables the car to automatically summon assistance if it detects a possible driver-incapacitating accident. Then there are the things we don't see. To get the top five-star Euro NCAP crash test rating, vehicles sold in the EU must pass stringent tests for the protection of occupants in frontal and side-impact collisions, whiplash prevention and safety assist features, as well as pedestrian safety. Equivalent testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the US isn't as rigorous. 'For example, they don't use the latest [more sophisticated] generation of crash test dummies,' the director-general of Europe for the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Laurianne Krid, pointed out. What is the problem with selling US-market vehicles here? As we've seen, simply saying a US car is as safe as a European one doesn't make it so. James Nix from T&E said: 'Particularly since the 2000s, Europe has made significant vehicle safety improvements that simply weren't mirrored in the US.' To maintain this improved safety standard, all manufacturers – whether from Europe, Korea, Japan, China or the US – must currently seek European type approval for their cars to sell them in large volumes here. There are concerns that giving in to the US would set a precedent for other countries. The ETSC's Curtis explained: 'We want to send a very clear message that this is a bad idea and will be a big mistake. We don't want to see the EU's world-leading vehicle safety standards undermined, because it's hard to see how that doesn't then undermine the whole system.' If the US gets its way, we might also see an influx of much larger vehicles. The FIA's Krid said: 'Most of the crash tests we do don't test the compatibility of smaller vehicles with much larger ones. Having larger vehicles coming to Europe isn't going to be great for road safety in general.' There's also the impact on infrastructure. Krid added: 'We do know the heavier the vehicles and the fewer the axles that weight is put on, the more damage there is to the infrastructure. So bringing in larger vehicles will have an impact on roads.' And the last thing we need is more potholes. Why aren't US vehicles as safe? Of course some US-made vehicles such as Teslas meet European type approval requirements, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The ETSC's Curtis explained: 'The US and Europe have two different regulatory systems. In the US, there's manufacturer self-certification before a car can be sold. Then there's a robust enforcement system run by [the] NHTSA. 'The European type approval system independently checks components, systems and the whole vehicle before it's allowed to be sold.' The result is that US roads are significantly less safe than Europe's. The ETSC says that since 2013, road deaths in the EU have decreased by 16 per cent. In the US over the same period, they have increased by 25 per cent. How likely is equivalency to happen? With the Trump government nothing is off the table. 'It's hard to second guess what the US strategy is,' said Curtis. The concern is it could be the thin end of a wedge that will see larger US vehicles coming in through a back door. Currently, if you want to fizz around Fulham in a monster Ford F-Series pick-up, you can buy one via the individual vehicle approval (IVA) loophole. Sales of giant Chevrolet Silverados sold in Europe through IVA went up by 513 per cent between 2022 and 2023. Safety experts want the IVA loophole closed. Krid warned: 'There is a genuine risk that some vehicles [deemed unsafe in Europe] might come through. That's what happens in negotiations. We want to limit the loopholes or whatever might arise from the trade agreement.' One thing is for sure, there are multiple reasons we should all be concerned about the prospect of car safety standards being diluted.
