Latest news with #legaldispute
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
Telecom Italia in talks with banks to sell 1 bln euro state credit, say sources
MILAN, June 20 (Reuters) - Telecom Italia (TIM) ( opens new tab is in advanced talks with banks to sell a 1 billion euro ($1.2 billion) state credit the phone group expects to be able to cash in from the government after a prolonged legal dispute, two sources told Reuters. TIM and Rome have been locked in a legal battle over a license fee TIM was obligated to pay to the state in 1998, the year after the telecoms sector was deregulated. TIM scored a victory last year when a Rome appeals court ordered the Italian government to give TIM back the original licence fee, worth just over 500 million euros, a figure that has since doubled due to accrued interests. The government has appealed the decision in front of Italy's top court. Pending the top court's ruling, TIM is in talks with UniCredit ( opens new tab and Santander ( opens new tab to get financing against the expected 1 billion euro refund from the government, the people said. Such a form of financing, whereby a company raises cash from banks by selling them a claim, typically invoices, at a discount to the claim's nominal value, is called factoring. In a similar case to TIM's, the top court has ruled in favour of Vodafone (VOD.L), opens new tab. In any case, were the final court decision to be against TIM, the company would just return the banks the cash they have lent it plus any interest that has matured, the people said. That would be no different than repaying ordinary bank debt. TIM, UniCredit and Santander all declined to comment. Italy's top court last month delayed its final decision over the case, saying further checks were needed to establish whether TIM's initial claim was filed with the correct court. A hearing on the matter is expected next week. ($1 = 0.8632 euros)
CTV News
17 hours ago
- Business
- CTV News
SaskPower to keep coal-fired power plants running
WATCH: SaskPower has plans to keep coal-fired power plants across the province running longer, and it could set the province up for another legal dispute with the feds.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Justin Baldoni Scores Small Legal Win After Strong Message To Blake Lively
Justin Baldoni's strong message to Blake Lively seems to be already yielding fruit in court. The director received a favorable ruling in his ongoing court case involving his "It Ends With Us" co-star. He can now review private conversations between Taylor Swift and Lively about the case. Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively's bitter legal dispute has reportedly had personal consequences, particularly for the friendship between Taylor Swift and the actress. Baldoni has now advanced further in the hot legal pursuit between himself and co-star Lively. Now, the director can review the conversations between the two friends to see what was said and what was not. The essence of this ruling is to help the court and Baldoni prove the validity of Lively's claims of harassment or otherwise- due to her closeness to the performer, a personal conversation may not be unusual. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman added that only relevant information to the case must be examined should Baldoni go through these private text messages. While Lively's legal team pulled all the strings to absolve Swift from this new ruling, their pleas were disregarded. Per Page Six, the movie star had earlier pleaded with the court to protect her interaction with Swift last Friday, noting that they are not crucial to the case. It all started when Lively accused Baldoni of sexually harassing her and proceeded to coordinate a smear campaign targeted at diminishing her career. Swift was then introduced to the mix when the director name-dropped her in his now-dismissed $400 million counter lawsuit. The singer even bagged a subpoena in May to testify as a witness in an upcoming trial for the case next year, but the request was subsequently dropped. According to Baldoni, Lively leveraged her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and her friend Swift's social currency to control things on the set of "It Ends With Us." He added that he was also invited as a guest to Lively and Reynold's home, where one of their "famous" close friends was present. There, the issue of rewriting movie scripts and readjusting the story was raised. Baldoni's attorney continued that Lively bragged about her husband and her billionaire friend during a conversation, referring to them as her "dragon." Bryan Freedman continued that Lively's statement was a subtle threat to his client, making him aware of his unsafe professional environment. Last week, The Blast shared that Baldoni suffered a crushing defeat in court on another lawsuit he dragged a news outlet to court for. On June 9, a federal judge threw out Baldoni's $250 million libel suit against The New York Times. The director also got his $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband, and her publicist Leslie Sloane dismissed. This double defeat prompted a significant reaction from Lively. The actress' legal team tagged the ruling as a total victory and absolute vindication for their client. In her words on Instagram, she described Baldoni's suit as defeated. Despite the pronouncement, the judge states that the two major claims cited in Baldoni's countersuit, namely, breach of implied covenant and tortious interference, can be amended later this month. For that reason, Lively and her team have also been advised to slow down on the early celebration by an attorney who is not involved with the case. The lawyer told PEOPLE: "The decision is undoubtedly a blow to Baldoni. But the case is far from over. One thing I've learned many times over as a litigator is not to celebrate too early." Baldoni's loss in court did not surprise his legal team. According to them, it was more of a move for them to bring public awareness to the ongoing case, which they have achieved despite the dismissal. Freedman then took a jab at Lively and her legal team for their reaction to the ruling. "Lively and her team's predictable declaration of victory is false. Lively's allegations are no truer today than they were yesterday, and with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when Ms. Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle," Freed notes." The lawyer continued that he, along with his team, was battle-ready for Lively's next line of action, including a deposition, which he would personally handle. As soon as the director files his amendments for claims that were dismissed, his lawyers expect his co-star to react by filing another motion to dismiss. In his ruling, the federal judge declared that neither Sloane nor the Times acted with intent to defame Baldoni. He added that the news agency also has no existing motive to agree with Lively's narrative or promote it. Lively looked radiant for her first appearance on the heels of Baldoni's loss in court. She took her victory lap at the Chanel Tribeca Festival Artists Dinner in New York City. The "Gossip Girl" actress looked ethereal in a white crochet outfit paired with her signature Christian Louboutin heels and Chanel accessories. She strutted her stuff on the carpet, serving killer angles to the teeming photographers. The actress was reportedly elated to get the $400 million lawsuit off her back for good and even cried with relief after hearing the verdict. What does June 23 have in store for Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni?
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Blake Lively Wants No Mention of Taylor Swift in Baldoni Case — Report
Blake Lively reportedly filed a motion to prevent Justin Baldoni from using her and Taylor Swift's text messages in the ongoing case. Page Six reviewed the court documents Lively filed with New York judge Lewis J. Liman to block her 'It Ends With Us' co-star and his team's 'media strategy' to drag the pop icon into their bitter legal dispute. The actor called it Baldoni's 'tactic' to exploit Swift and her massive fan base to distract attention from the issue and her sexual harassment allegations. Blake Lively is seemingly leaving no stone unturned to block Justin Baldoni's team from using Taylor Swift's text messages in the case. Page Six reported that on Friday, she filed a motion seeking a 'protective order' to restrict the contesting party from obtaining her and Swift's exchanges. In her filing, Lively accused her co-star and his legal team of strategically devising the 'tactic' of using their communications to take advantage of the singer and her fans. Baldoni first named-dropped Swift in his $400 million countersuit against the 'Gossip Girl' alum and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. Earlier this year, a New York judge dismissed his multimillion-dollar suit against the couple after he dropped the subpoenas to the Grammy winner and her legal team. His team then claimed they dropped the inquiry into her and Lively's friendship after obtaining what they needed. In her recent motion, Blake Lively argued that her and Taylor Swift's text messages were 'not central' to her case against Baldoni. She further asserted these communications were 'irrelevant' to her legal adversary and Wayfarer's claims. Lively's letter to the judge accused them of 'repeatedly' using Swift's name 'as part of their media strategy.' Her team also noted that a continued pursuit would be 'duplicative, cumulative, and unnecessary.' Later, Lively's representative released a statement calling out Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties. It highlighted their repeated tries to her and Swift's 'private communications,' despite their subpoena to the singer, which they withdrew, claiming they 'got all they needed.' Explaining the purpose of their latest legal move, the statement called the 'ongoing attempts' a 'PR tactic' to divert attention from Baldoni's lawsuit dismissal. The post Blake Lively Wants No Mention of Taylor Swift in Baldoni Case — Report appeared first on Reality Tea.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Retired banking boss has legal ding-dong with Parliament's chief bell-ringer for ripping out front gate to his £2m west London home on day he moved in
A retired banking boss and his wife have been embroiled in a legal ding-dong with a Parliament's master bell-ringer after he ripped out the front gate to their £2million west London home when they moved in. Nicholas Partick-Hiley - a former Panmure Gordon Securities top executive - bought his mews cottage in Fulham, in August 2023, planning to make the elegant, sprawling property a dream home for his retirement alongside wife, Lisa. However the 64-year-old ex-financier was shocked when he arrived to find his bell-ringer neighbour, Adrian Udal, 65, demolishing the door and roller gate of his new home in an act of 'wanton destruction'. Mr Udal, who had lived next door to the couple's property for 30 years, claimed he had merely been asserting rights over land he owns when ripping out the previous gate and installing a new one at the end of the driveway. The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing 'security concerns' in the affluent street. They also said Mr Udal had been involved in a dispute with the previous owner of their home, adding that the bell master deliberately plotted to eliminate the gate fronting his new neighbours' property before they moved in. Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC has since handed victory to Mr and Mrs Partick-Hiley, ordering Mr Udal to pay the couple £10,000 as he ruledbell-ringer's actions to be 'unjustifiable and unneighbourly'. He described it as a 'wrongful act of wanton any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort.' The two neighbouring homes have unusual layout, with the Patrick-Hileyy's home situated behind Mr Udal's property and is reachable via a drive and a passageway, the court heard. The drive and passageway, which run under Mr Udal's home are owned by the bell-ringer, but the Partick-Hileys have the right to pass over it to get to their house. Mr Udal insisted that their rights over the passage did not include passing through by car or parking a vehicle on it. Representing the Patrick Hileys, Mark Warwick KC told Mayors and City County Court that the incident began when they found Mr Udal destroying the door and gate at around 12pm on move in day. Despite being 'astonished', he said Mr Patrick Hiley 'endeavoured to remain calm' and contacted his solicitors but ultimately 'felt helpless', as Mr Udal and another man continued with the demolition work until around 5pm. 'They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services,' Mr Warwick KC said. 'No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen. 'His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions. 'The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted.' Mr Partick-Hiley and his wife said they were aware of the conflict between their home's previous owner and Mr Udal before moving in, but they hoped it had been resolved by August 2023 until Mr Udal was witnessed dismantling the disputed gate. The couple insisted they have the right to erect and site entrance gates 'on either side of the opening that runs under part of Mr Udal's house,' plus the right to park a car in the area. They went to court seeking an injunction preventing Mr Udal interfering with their rights, which they claimed allows them to attach gates to the side of Mr Udal's house and so block off access to the passage. Their barrister told the judge they had done their utmost to deal in a measured way with Mr Udal even before moving into their new home. It was heard that the couple contacted Mr Udal two months before moving explaining that they planned to install 'better looking and more functional gates' once they moved in. They also made it clear they would welcome Mr Udal's input on the style and design of those gates. But in response, the couple alleged their new neighbour began to plot how to remove and install new gates, buying his own set of metal barriers on July 13, 2023. Their barrister claimed this purchase showed that 'he was planning to carry out the destruction of the existing gates'. When the day of completion arrived, 'Mr Udal and his accomplice duly set about destroying the gates and disconnecting services running through the driveway', he added. Soon afterwards, the couple's lawyers wrote to Mr Udal insisting that the removed gates were their property and that it was up to them to decide what alternatives should be put in their place. 'Mr Udal disagreed,' said the KC, adding: 'On 10 September, he began to hang metal gates, of his own choosing, right next to the pavement.' Mr Udal insisted their right only extends to having the strip gated at the front of the property next to the pavement and they have no right to have a car on his land. In submissions to the court on the master bell-ringer's behalf, his barrister, Aaron Walder, said the Partick-Hileys' original gate had 'trespassed' on his property. However Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC ruled in favour of the Patrick Hileys, sayding Mr Udal was 'a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality'. 'The overall impression was that truth for him, in the context of legal proceedings at least, was no obstacle to a clever argument about language or the other evidence. The judge found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the couple have a right 'to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles' down the drive and passage. He added: 'Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners. 'I also find that his the claimants' internet cable for about six weeks; they also led to a lack of privacy and meant that Mrs Partick-Hiley in particular felt uneasy about coming home after dark. 'This (behaviour) was inappropriate and unneighbourly and my impression of Mr Udal is that he is likely, if given the opportunity, to think of other ways in which he can interfere with the claimants' rights if his own ability to believe his own arguments and language constructions manages to suggest them. 'It follows that the claimants' rights need to be vindicated by the granting of declarations and injunctions for their reasonable protection and to limit the risk of a repetition. 'The removal of the roller gates and furniture was a trespass to property and the general conduct on 25 August 2025 was a nuisance and in particular a wrongful interference with the claimants' easements. The defendant's conduct has continued as a sporadic and occasional interference.' Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer who was appointed Secretary of the Belfy at St Margaret's Church, Westminster, in 2021, a medieval building next to Westminster Abbey which acts as the church for the Houses of Parliament. Part of his Secretary of the Belfy role involves liaising with clergy when bellringing is needed for special church, state and parliamentary events. The broadcast editor, who is a bell tower captain at St Gabriel's Church Pimlico, also has a keen interest in antique clocks, and was proud to have 'rung in' the New Year nearly annually since 2000. Mr Partick-Hiley is a retired financier and former managing director and head of sales for North America investment banking specialists Panmure Gordon.
