Battle for world's largest blue cut diamond ends in stalemate
The saga of the storied $10 million gemstones is complex. The diamond is owned by Elanus, a holding company representing the heirs of a prolific Qatari royal art collector who died in 2014. That year, Elanus loaned the gem to Sheikh Hamad Abdullah Al-Thani's QIPCO under a deal granting the company first refusal if the stone was ever put up for sale.
In 2020, a family member linked to Elanus proposed a sale. Sheikh Hamad moved quickly, and when other Elanus beneficiaries demurred, he launched a legal case to enforce the sale. A High Court judge in London has now ruled that Elanus can't be forced to sell, quashing Sheikh Hamad's hopes of acquiring the diamond.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
5 days ago
Australian court rejects X Corp.'s appeal in child safety case, orders legal costs
MELBOURNE, Australia -- An Australian appeals court on Thursday ruled against X Corp., rejecting a challenge to a safety watchdog's demands for details on how the Elon Musk -owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material on its platform. Three federal court judges unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to a notice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant on child abuse material being shared on X, which is incorporated in Texas. The judges also ordered X to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. Inman Grant has driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms including X from December. The federal court case goes back to early 2023, when Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter Inc., incorporated in Delaware, in February that year. Twitter merged with X the following month. X arguments against complying with Inman Grant's order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed Thursday's ruling. 'This judgment confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company,' she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and 'holding all tech companies to account without fear or favor, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia.' 'Without meaningful transparency, we cannot hold technology companies accountable,' she said. X lawyer Justin Quill said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10% of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. X's media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday. In 2023, Inman Grant's office fined X 610, 500 Australian dollars ($385,000) for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading. X refused to pay and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Australian court rejects X Corp.'s appeal in child safety case, orders legal costs
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — An Australian appeals court on Thursday ruled against X Corp., rejecting a challenge to a safety watchdog's demands for details on how the Elon Musk -owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material on its platform. Three federal court judges unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to a notice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant on child abuse material being shared on X, which is incorporated in Texas. The judges also ordered X to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. Inman Grant has driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms including X from December. The federal court case goes back to early 2023, when Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter Inc., incorporated in Delaware, in February that year. Twitter merged with X the following month. X arguments against complying with Inman Grant's order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed Thursday's ruling. 'This judgment confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company,' she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and 'holding all tech companies to account without fear or favor, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia.' 'Without meaningful transparency, we cannot hold technology companies accountable,' she said. X lawyer Justin Quill said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10% of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. In 2023, Inman Grant's office fined X 610, 500 Australian dollars ($385,000) for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Pete Hegseth's Secret Deal to Get Trump His Free Qatari Jet Is Leaked
The U.S. has formally received Qatar's 'unconditional donation' of a $400 million 747-8 Boeing jet for the Trump administration to use as Air Force One. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his Qatari counterpart earlier this month signed a memorandum of understanding which also allows Trump to use the plane once he leaves office, ABC News reported Monday. That document describes the plane as a 'bona fide gift' to the Defense Department, with the U.S. paying nothing for it. 'This donation is made in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation and mutual support between the parties,' it states. 'Nothing in this [memorandum of understanding] is, or shall be interpreted or construed as, an offer, promise, or acceptance of any form of bribery, undue influence, or corrupt practice.' The memo adds that the plane is 'not connected or otherwise related to any governmental decision and, as such, is not made, offered, promised or accepted because of any past, present or future official act or decision and is not intended to obtain or retain any improper advantage or to influence any official decision.' The White House did not immediately respond to an inquiry from the Daily Beast. The Defense Department declined to comment. When the 'gift'–which was previously used by the Qatari royal family–was first announced in May, lawmakers, commentators on the right and left, and Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, were critical. Some questioned whether the arrangement was really 'free' given Trump's transactional approach to the presidency. The cost of renovations was also a point of concern, given how aviation experts estimated a minimum price tag of $1 billion. The Defense Department recently transferred nearly that much for a classified projected, The New York Times reported Sunday. Air Force officials told the outlet that some of the money would be spent on renovating the aircraft that has been called a 'flying palace.' After Trump leaves office, ownership of the plane will transfer to the Trump presidential library foundation, Hegseth confirmed during a June Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. But that didn't sit well with some lawmakers. 'Why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of $1 billion on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transfer directly to the president?' Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy asked. 'That doesn't sound like a wise use of taxpayer dollars.'
