• Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund, has settled its compensation fight with former co-CEO Eileen Murray. 
  • A spokesperson confirmed the deal, but offered no details on the settlement size or terms.
  • Murray originally filed her lawsuit in July, saying the firm balked on up to $100 million in deferred pay after she disclosed her internal dispute to an industry body. 
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

Bridgewater Associates settled a multimillion-dollar gender pay-disparity lawsuit with its former co-CEO Eileen Murray for an undisclosed amount of money, it said Monday.

A spokesperson for the Connecticut-based hedge fund confirmed the settlement to Business Insider, saying: “We are pleased that we were able to amicably and fairly resolve the discussions around Eileen’s post-employment benefits.”

Murray, who helmed the $140 billion firm from 2009 to earlier this year, originally filed her complaint in July after departing. She claimed the firm withheld up to $100 million in deferred compensation after she told FINRA about the pay dispute when joining the self-regulatory body’s board of directors.

“Bridgewater has used a false and otherwise grossly expanded, bad faith assertion under the terms of the Plan to claim forfeiture of Ms. Murray’s earned Deferred Compensation, all as part of a cynical plan to intimidate and silence her,” she said in the lawsuit.

The Bridgewater spokesperson declined to elaborate on the size or terms of its settlement with Murray.

“We have a tremendous amount of respect for Eileen and the many contributions she made to Bridgewater during her 10 years of helping to lead the company,” their statement continued. “She will always be a valued member of the Bridgewater community and we wish her well in her various new ventures.”

In September, The Wall Street Journal reported that another high-ranking woman at the hedge fund, research director

A new lawsuit alleges that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has acted in bad faith against the spouses of H-1B visa holders. The plaintiffs argue H-1B spouses cannot renew their H-4 employment authorization documents (EADs) because USCIS changed procedures to prevent the spouses from working in the United States. The plaintiffs say USCIS added an unnecessary biometrics requirement and adopted an erroneous interpretation of government regulations by prohibiting automatic extensions of H-4 work authorization. Plaintiffs’ attorneys assert Trump administration officials wanted to eliminate the regulation that allows the spouses of many H-1B visa holders to work but after failing to do so instead changed its policies to accomplish the same goal.

Processing Change: In 2015, a regulation granting work authorization to the spouses of H-1B visa holders with approved immigrant petitions (i.e., long-pending employment-based green cards) went into effect. H-1B spouses are usually in H-4 status. A rule is pending with the Office of Management and Budget to rescind the 2015 regulation but it has run into difficulties and has remained on the administration’s agenda for years without being published.

Before March 2019, USCIS would typically adjudicate an H-4 dependent petition and the H-4 EAD (employment authorization document) application at the same time as the H-1B petition from the same family. Premium processing of the H-1B petition would ensure adjudication within 15 days. The wait times for H-4 EADS have grown from 3 months up to 18 months in some locations after USCIS changed its policies, including requiring H-4 spouses to supply biometrics.

A previous lawsuit

SAO PAULO (Reuters) – Brazilian federal and state prosecutors have asked a court to re-open a multi-billion-dollar civil action lawsuit against miners Samarco, Vale SA and BHP for damages caused by the Fundao dam burst in 2015, authorities said on Thursday.

The incident at Samarco’s Mariana facilities, a joint venture between Vale and BHP, which left 19 dead and polluted the River Doce, was Brazil’s biggest ever environmental disaster. The claim is for damages of 155 billion reais ($27.4 billion).

The suit had been suspended in 2018 after an agreement between prosecutors and the companies. But in the Thursday statement, state prosecutors in Minas Gerais, where Mariana is located, alleged that the companies were not meeting their obligations in a timely fashion.

In a joint statement, Vale, Samarco and BHP said they were surprised by prosecutors’ decision to attempt to re-open the suit, and said they vehemently disagreed with the assertion that they were not complying with their obligations promptly. They said the existing agreement allowed for full reparations for all parties affected by the dam break.

Another mining dam owned by Vale burst in Minas Gerais in 2019, an incident which killed 270 people and sparked a series of criminal and civil suits.

Earlier on Thursday, Vale said that 33 of its 104 dam structures in Brazil had failed their stability assessments.

(Reporting by Luciano Costa; Writing and additional reporting by Gram Slattery in Rio de Janeiro; Editing by Franklin Paul, Andrea Ricci and Leslie Adler)

Copyright 2020 Thomson Reuters.

Source Article