Latest news with #legaldispute
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Blake Lively moves to drop two claims about Justin Baldoni
Blake Lively has made moves to withdraw two of the claims she made about the actor and director Justin Baldoni, who worked with her on the 2024 romantic drama It Ends With Us. The two actors have been engaged in a legal dispute since Lively sued Baldoni in December 2024 following the release of the film based on the best-selling novel by Colleen Hoover. Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and a public smear campaign. Baldoni's legal team reportedly asked Lively to release her medical records, including therapy notes, as part of its defence against her claims she suffered 'she suffered 'severe emotional distress and pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, frustration and mental anguish', according to Variety. In January, it was reported that Baldoni planned to sue his co-star and her husband, the actor Ryan Reynolds, following the accusations on claims of civil extortion, defamation and invasion of privacy. Lively is now attempting to drop the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Though the actress is withdrawing the claims, she is refusing to withdraw the claims with prejudice as Baldoni's legal team had requested, Variety reported. According to legal filings by Baldoni's team, Lively is only willing to withdraw her claims without prejudice. 'Ms Lively wants to simultaneously: (a) refuse to disclose the information and documents needed to disprove that she suffered any emotional distress and/or that the Wayfarer Parties were the cause; and (b) maintain the right to re-file her IED Claims at an unknown time in this or some other court after the discovery window has closed,' Variety reported a Monday filing to say. The court will ultimately decide if the claims will be dismissed or if Lively will be compelled to disclose the records related to her mental health. Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, two of Lively's lawyers, called the filing from Baldoni's team 'a press stunt'. They added: 'The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms Lively's original claims no longer necessary. Ms Lively continues to allege emotional distress, as part of numerous other claims in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, and massive additional compensatory damages on all of her claims,' in a statement to the magazine.' In December 2024, the New York Times published an article entitled: ''We Can Bury Anyone': Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,' that served as an exposé of how Baldoni allegedly utilized his publicists and the media to publicly drag Lively's reputation. Baldoni, publicist Melissa Nathan, and eight other plaintiffs accused the Times of 'cherrypicking' facts and filed a $250m libel lawsuit against the paper.
BBC News
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- BBC News
Blake Lively drops two claims against Justin Baldoni
The actress Blake Lively has attempted to withdraw two of the claims she made about director Justin have been engaged in a legal dispute since Lively sued Baldoni in December 2024 after they worked together on the film It Ends With Us, accusing him of sexual harassment and a smear legal team asked Lively to release her medical records, including therapy notes, as part of its defence against her claims she suffered "severe emotional distress and pain, humiliation, embarrassment", Variety said. Lively is trying to drop claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the publication added. The court will decide if it will dismiss the claims or compel Lively to hand over information related to her mental approached Baldoni's lawyers, who have declined comment. The BBC has also approached both parties for comment. Documents filed by Baldoni's legal team on Monday said: "Instead of complying with the Medical RFPs [Request for Proposal], Ms Lively's counsel recently advised us, in writing, that Ms Lively is withdrawing her [infliction of emotional distress] claims."They wrote that Lively had refused their "reasonable request that the withdrawal of such claims be with prejudice" opening up the possibility they could be refiled. Lively's lawyers told Variety Baldoni's filing was "a press stunt" and said her defence was "streamlining and focusing" her added: "The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms Lively's original claims no longer necessary. "Ms Lively continues to allege emotional distress, as part of numerous other claims in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, and massive additional compensatory damages on all of her claims." In January this year, Baldoni counter-sued Lively and her husband, the actor Ryan Reynolds, on claims of civil extortion, defamation and invasion of and Baldoni have been locked in a dispute since It Ends With Us, which is an adaption of a best-selling Colleen Hoover novel, was released last the film Lively played the main character, Lily Bloom, a young woman who grew up witnessing domestic abuse, and winds up in the same position years singer Taylor Swift had been summoned to a US court last month, after it was alleged she encouraged Baldoni to accept script rewrites by for Swift said at the time "she was not involved in any casting or creative decision" and "never saw an edit or made any notes on the film".The subpoena was dropped about two weeks later, after Swift's legal team objected that the legal order amounted to an "unwarranted fishing expedition", Variety said.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Barrick seeks World Bank arbitration on government takeover of Mali mine
Barrick Mining has sought intervention from the World Bank's arbitration tribunal amid a legal dispute in Mali, where its Loulo-Gounkoto gold mine risks falling under government control. The Canadian miner's request for "provisional measures" comes as a local court in Mali is set to decide on the government's bid to place the mine under provisional administration on 2 June 2025, according to a Reuters report. The dispute escalated after Mali seized three tonnes of gold from Barrick's mine in January over alleged non-payment of taxes - a claim Barrick contests. The company has now turned to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), seeking to prevent further actions by the Malian government that could worsen the situation. 'Provisional measures' refer to Barrick's plea for an order that would stop the Mali government from taking steps such as appointing an administrator for the mine, explained Timothy Foden of Boies Schiller Flexner. Barrick and Mali's Mines Ministry have not responded to queries regarding the ongoing legal proceedings. Mali, the third-largest gold producer in Africa, has enacted a new mining code and is asserting more control over its mines, which are predominantly operated by Western companies. The military-led government is intent on increasing mining revenues, deeming current agreements inequitable, and has demanded compliance from foreign mining companies. While most have complied with the government's demands, Barrick has stood firm, citing over two decades of substantial investment in Mali's economy. The company has accused the government of shifting demands and unfairly targeting its executives. The conflict has led to the shutdown of Barrick's Bamako corporate office and the dismissal of workers by the mine's contractors. An official familiar with the Mali government's stance stated that the matter is a domestic tax issue and does not warrant international arbitration. "Barrick seeks World Bank arbitration on government takeover of Mali mine" was originally created and published by Mining Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Forbes
Fortnite Is Back On iPhone: For Millions Of Players Game Returns To U.S. And EU iPhones
Fortnite is back on the iPhone in the U.S. for the first time since August 2020 — it was ejected from the App Store after the maker, Epic Games, broke Apple's rules by adding a payment method to avoid Apple's fees. Fortnite is back on the iPhone. After years of legal disputes (which still aren't over), a ruling in early May issued an injunction that meant Apple couldn't stop the developer directing customers to payment methods that weren't Apple's, and avoiding Apple's commissions as a result. Epic re-submitted the app to the U.S. App Store on Friday, May 9, but the app didn't appear until May 20. In the meantime, Epic Games had complained that Apple had blocked the submission everywhere, so the alternative app stores available to European users couldn't see the game either. Apple disputed this, saying that its actions should not have affected EU users. Epic asked the court to require Apple to accept compliant Epic apps and today, May 20, the app reappeared, though Apple has not commented on the situation. Where Does That Leave Players? First, let's note that whatever the legal judgments, Apple was never compelled to put the app in the App Store — it can decide what apps appear there. Second, millions of players who have mourned the absence of the game in the U.S. can now enjoy it again, and it's already become the number 1 top free game on the U.S. App Store as a result. Pent-up demand over five years will do that. It's worth noting that while it's available in the EU in alternative app stores, it's not in the official App Store in Europe or anywhere else in the world outside the U.S. — though this is likely to change. If you need to buy in-app stuff, you can do so as you always could through the App Store's system, but if you want to buy the game's currency, V-Bucks, you can also go to Epic Games Store's option, which offers 20% of your spend back in Epic Rewards. Not quite as seamless as the App Store but better value. So, What's Next? Apple is appealing the most recent legal ruling, so it's possible the game could be booted out of the App Store again, and since there are frequent updates, even if you've downloaded it now doesn't mean you'll get the latest features if it is. Please check back for updates.
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Wild campers set to find out if they're banned from Dartmoor after wealthy couple's bid to keep public off their land
Wild campers are set to discover if they can continue to enjoy the scenic beauty of Dartmoor as a long-running legal dispute comes to a head on Wednesday. Landowners Alexander and Diana Darwall are challenging a Court of Appeal ruling which says that members of the public have the right to wild camp in the national park of Devon. In recent years, the right to pitch a tent in the wilderness and enjoy an evening among nature has prompted a fierce debate, with Labour once promising it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks. In the case of Dartmoor, a 368-square mile area that features 'commons' (land that the public has specific rights to use), camping had been assumed to be allowed since 1985 under the terms set out under the Dartmoor Commons Act. While wild camping is allowed in large parts of Scotland, Dartmoor marked the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner. Mr Darwall, a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager, purchased the 4,000 acre Blachford estate in southern Dartmoor in 2013. He and his wife keep cattle on part of the land which is called Stall Moor, and have argued that campers cause problems to livestock and damage the natural surroundings. Commenting on the case, Mr Darwall had previously said that many campers do not observe the 'leave no trace' principle, and that campfires can cause 'habitat destruction' or 'devastating damage' if it turns into a wildfire. The case hinges on whether wild camping can be classified as open-air recreation. In the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, it states that the 'public shall have the right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation'. Lawyers for the Darwalls have argued that the nearly 40-year piece of legislation means that it only provides access for walking and riding. This is strongly contested by lawyers representing the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA), who have said that the phrase 'on foot' means access should be pedestrian and not by means of a vehicle. The DNPA have also disputed the concerns of damage caused by camping, describing the reported impact to land and vegetation as 'absurd'. In written submissions, Richard KC said: 'The suggestion that merely erecting a tent for backpack or wild camping damages the land and vegetation is absurd. 'Erecting a tent for backpack or wild camping for a night or two would do no such damage.' Since launching his campaign to ban wild campers from his estate, thousands of campaigners have joined a protest movement asserting their right to camp freely around the beauty spot. During the first stage of their legal battle in January 2023, the Darwalls won their High Court case, which ruled that the law did not give people the right to pitch tents overnight without landowners' permission. However, just months later the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, finding the law gave people 'the right to rest or sleep on the Dartmoor Commons, whether by day or night and whether in a tent or otherwise' as long as byelaws are followed. The Darwalls were then allowed to pursue their case in the Supreme Court, with a final ruling expected on Wednesday.
