The decisive moment came on April 13, 2026, when the court ordered Lafarge to pay a fine of 1.12 million euros and confiscated 30 million euros worth of its assets. The court’s findings revealed that Lafarge had paid a total of 5.59 million euros to armed groups, including ISIL and the al-Nusra Front, to secure safe passage for its operations.

Eight former Lafarge employees, including former CEO Bruno Lafont, were found guilty of financing terrorism, with Lafont receiving a six-year jail sentence. Christian Herrault, the former deputy managing director, was sentenced to five years. This ruling marks the first time a company has been tried and convicted in France for such serious charges.

Judge Isabelle Prevost-Desprez emphasized the court’s view that the funding was solely aimed at keeping the Syrian plant operational for economic reasons. “It is clear to the court that the sole purpose of the funding of a terrorist organisation was to keep the Syrian plant running for economic reasons,” she stated.

In total, Lafarge acknowledged paying nearly 13 million euros to middlemen to maintain its cement factory in Jalabiya, which began operations in 2010, just months before the Syrian uprising. The payments not only supported the company’s operations but also inadvertently bolstered groups responsible for deadly attacks in Syria and beyond.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Lafarge, as it sets a precedent for corporate accountability in cases of terrorism financing. Sherpa and ECCHR, organizations advocating for corporate responsibility, hailed the decision as historic in the fight against multinational corporations’ impunity.

Cannelle Lavite, an expert on corporate governance, noted that the court established that Lafarge had mobilized financial, human, and political resources to preserve its economic interests amid the conflict. This conviction could lead to increased scrutiny of other corporations operating in conflict zones.

As the legal ramifications unfold, Lafarge has acknowledged the court’s findings, referring to the case as a legacy matter involving conduct from over a decade ago. However, the ruling signals a new era of accountability for corporations involved in similar situations.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding potential appeals or further legal actions against Lafarge or its executives. The global business community will be watching closely as this case develops, potentially reshaping the landscape of corporate ethics and accountability.

Сообщение Lafarge Convicted of Financing Terrorism in France появились сначала на justrealnews.

During the Syrian civil war, Lafarge paid approximately 5.59 million euros to armed groups, including ISIL and the al-Nusra Front, to keep its Jalabiya plant operational. This facility began operations in 2010, just months before the uprising in early 2011.

Judge Isabelle Prevost-Desprez stated, “The sole purpose of the funding of a terrorist organisation was to keep the Syrian plant running for economic reasons,” emphasizing the gravity of the company’s actions. Lafarge also admitted to paying nearly 13 million euros to middlemen to maintain operations amid escalating violence.

This case is unprecedented in France, as it is the first time a company has been tried for financing terrorism. Lafarge is also under investigation for alleged complicity in crimes against humanity, further complicating its legal troubles.

In a related case in the United States, Lafarge faced similar charges, resulting in a total of $778 million in forfeiture and fines. The company acknowledged the court’s findings regarding conduct that occurred over a decade ago.

Former employees have voiced their concerns, stating, “Lafarge was aware of what was happening to us – the checkpoints, the threats, the daily fear – but chose to risk the lives of its employees for profit.” This sentiment underscores the ethical implications of Lafarge’s decisions during the conflict.

Lafarge has expressed its commitment to addressing this legacy matter responsibly, calling the ruling an important milestone in its efforts to rectify past actions. However, the long-term impact on the company’s reputation and operations remains to be seen.

As observers await further developments, the implications of this ruling could resonate throughout the corporate world, prompting a reevaluation of how companies engage in conflict zones.

Сообщение Lafarge Cement Found Guilty of Financing Terrorism in Syria появились сначала на justrealnews.

In a recent ruling, Judge Darrin Gayles stated that Trump did not plausibly allege that the defendants published the article with actual malice, leading to the dismissal of his lawsuit. Trump had sought a jury trial and a staggering $10 billion in damages.

The lawsuit stemmed from an article that reported on a letter Trump allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, a claim Trump vehemently denies. The judge’s ruling did not address whether the statements made in the article were true or defamatory, leaving that aspect open for further debate.

Judge Gayles highlighted that prior to publishing the article, The Wall Street Journal contacted Trump, Justice Department officials, and the FBI for comments. Trump responded with a denial, while the Justice Department did not respond, and the FBI declined to comment.

Trump’s legal history includes multiple failed defamation lawsuits against various media organizations, raising questions about his strategy moving forward. The judge has allowed Trump until April 27 to file an amended lawsuit, indicating that there may be another attempt to pursue this case.

As this situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how Trump will adjust his legal approach and whether he can successfully argue his case in a future filing. The implications for media organizations and their reporting practices could be profound, depending on the outcome of any amended claims.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding Trump’s next steps, but the legal landscape is increasingly complex as he navigates the intersection of public figure status and defamation law.

Сообщение Defamation: Trump’s Lawsuit Against The Wall Street Journal Dismissed появились сначала на justrealnews.

The U.S. appeals court’s decision allows the controversial construction of the White House state ballroom to continue until April 17, 2026, despite ongoing legal challenges. The project, which has drawn criticism and support alike, is estimated to cost a staggering $400 million and is expected to take at least two years to complete.

The ballroom’s construction has been a flashpoint for the Trump administration since it broke ground last October, following the demolition of the East Wing, originally built in 1902. Critics have labeled the project a “vanity project,” while the Trump administration insists it is essential for national security.

Judge Richard Leon, who ruled that the president requires congressional approval for the ballroom project, emphasized, “The president is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” His comments reflect concerns about the implications of such a significant renovation.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has filed a lawsuit against the ballroom project, arguing that it threatens the historical integrity of the White House. Carol Quillen, President of the National Trust, expressed her appreciation for the court’s swift action, stating, “We appreciate the court of appeals acting quickly and await further clarification from the district court.”

Despite the legal battles, the Trump administration maintains that no taxpayer dollars are being used for the funding of the ballroom, which they describe as “beautiful, desperately needed, and completely secure (for national security purposes).” This assertion aims to quell concerns about the financial implications of the project.

As the construction progresses, the exact implications of the appeals court’s ruling on the timeline remain unclear. Details remain unconfirmed.

With the deadline for the temporary stay approaching, all eyes are on the White House as it navigates the complexities of this ambitious project amidst a backdrop of legal scrutiny and public debate.

Сообщение White House State Ballroom Construction Continues Amid Controversy появились сначала на justrealnews.

In a significant legal development, a federal judge in New York has dismissed Blake Lively’s sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni. The ruling comes just days before the trial is scheduled to start on May 18, 2024.

The judge determined that Lively, who filed the lawsuit in December 2024, was an independent contractor and thus not entitled to bring sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, the court left intact two retaliation claims, allowing a jury to hear about some of Lively’s allegations.

During the proceedings, the judge noted that Baldoni’s conduct was directed toward Lively’s character in the scene rather than Lively herself. This distinction played a crucial role in the dismissal of the harassment claims.

Lively’s lawsuit included over a dozen claims, alleging a hostile work environment during the filming of the movie “It Ends With Us,” which grossed over $351 million worldwide after its release in August 2024.

In response to the ruling, Lively’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, stated that her client looks forward to testifying about the efforts made to destroy her reputation because she stood up for safety on the set.

Meanwhile, Baldoni’s legal team expressed satisfaction with the dismissal of the sexual harassment claims, stating, “What’s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense.” The judge had previously dismissed Baldoni’s defamation case against the New York Times last June.

Judge Lewis J. Liman emphasized the importance of creative freedom in artistic endeavors, stating, “Creative artists, no less than comedy room writers, must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment.” He also noted that it may be fair for an author or director to discuss personal experiences, including those related to sex, as part of the creative process.

The dispute became public when Lively filed a complaint against Baldoni with the California Civil Rights Department, highlighting the ongoing tensions in the entertainment industry regarding workplace conduct.

As the trial approaches, both parties prepare for what is sure to be a closely watched legal battle, with significant implications for workplace rights in Hollywood.

Сообщение Blake Lively’s Sexual Harassment Claims Dismissed in New York Court появились сначала на justrealnews.