BRITAIN’S Got Talent boss Simon Cowell is being sued over a £75million deal said to have been written on a napkin.
The TV and music mogul is accused by former business adviser Ian Rosenblatt of being unpredictable and “very difficult to speak to” as he refuses to own a mobile phone.
Mr Rosenblatt worked for Mr Cowell from 2018.
But he is pursuing him for millions after claiming a deal, originally hashed out over dinner on a serviette, was not honoured.
The pair are said to have met for dinner in London in October 2022 to discuss a way forward following a series of rows.
Documents submitted to the High Court claim that Mr Cowell offered an attractive fee arrangement for a deal he was working on at the time.
The documents say: “The terms of that offer were written on a napkin which Mr Cowell then signed.”
It offered up to 15 per cent of any deal of more than £75million.
The deal was later formalised at a meeting at Mr Cowell’s Cotswolds home in February 2023.
Mr Rosenblatt claims to have not been paid at all for the agreement.
Lawyers for BGT and X Factor boss Mr Cowell are yet to respond to the claims.
The Sun on Sunday has contacted him for comment.
The states claim the new levies are a pretext to re-impose tariffs that were ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court.
Published On 4 Aug 20264 Aug 2026
A group of 25 Democratic-led states has sued Donald Trump’s administration over its latest tariffs, claiming that the US president has exceeded his legal authority to implement the levies.
The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade on Monday, targets new double-digit tariffs imposed on 60 trading partners last month over allegations they were not doing enough to stop the importation of goods produced with forced labour.
list of 3 itemsend of list
These latest tariffs took effect just as the clock ran out on temporary tariffs that Trump had turned to after the Supreme Court struck down his flagship “liberation day” levies in a February ruling.
“After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The states that sued over the new tariffs, including Oregon and New York, all have Democratic attorneys general or governors.
In response, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the levies were an appropriate and legal response to unfair trade practices in other nations.
“A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens US commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed,” Desai said.
Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive US manufacturing, last year overturned decades of Washington policy that favoured lower tariffs and ever-freer trade.
Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country, saying the US’s longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.
But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorise tariffs. The decision forced the administration to establish a refund process for importers who had paid the tariffs.
Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10 percent worldwide tariffs, but they expired at midnight on July 24.
The latest round of global tariffs was imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, meant to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices by other nations. The tariffs imposed in July affect more than 99 percent of US imports.
The states’ complaint, like two previous lawsuits filed by small businesses over the tariffs, argued that the new tariffs used “forced labor” as a pretext to re-impose the tariffs that had already been ruled illegal in court. They said that a sweeping tax on imports would do nothing to address the real problems of forced labour around the world.
hapabapa/iStock Editorial via Getty Images
Amazon (AMZN) is facing a proposed consumer class action in the United States over allegations that it misrepresented the environmental credentials of seafood sold through its online marketplace, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Seattle.
The lawsuit, filed
July 13 (UPI) — A federal judge in Florida said Monday that President Donald Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service for an “improper purpose” to reach a settlement with the Justice Department earlier this year.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida added that the settlement Trump reached with the Justice Department protecting him and his family from tax audits is no longer valid.
Williams said Trump’s settlement with a Cabinet-level agency that he presides over is an attempt to “manipulate the judicial process.”
“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote.
“In abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States, the Government entered into a ‘settlement’ that deviated from its litigation posture in similar actions, disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives beyond those authorized, as well as those specifically prohibited, by law.”
Trump reached a settlement with the government after suing the IRS for $10 billion over a contractor leaking his tax information. Trump is the first president or nominee from the two major political parties in more than 40 years to not disclose his tax information.
Williams has referred Trump’s attorney in the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar. The bar will consider whether Brito should be disciplined based on Williams’ finding in her order. She is also sending a copy of her order to the State Bar of New York, where Acting Attorney Todd Blanche is a member.
Less than two months after being sued by two former housekeepers, Kylie Jenner has been hit with a third workplace lawsuit. The beauty mogul’s former private chef alleges a grueling workload led to her miscarriage.
Filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the complaint alleges the woman routinely worked 11- to 12-hour shifts, five days a week, and was assigned physically demanding tasks despite alerting supervisors to her high-risk pregnancy.
A representative for Jenner did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.
According to the filing, reviewed by The Times, the woman was told she was selected to work as Jenner’s private chef around Thanksgiving 2024. In early December 2024, the woman claims she informed her supervisors, also named as defendants, that she was three months pregnant and “required reasonable accommodations to protect her health and pregnancy.”
On New Year’s Eve in 2024, supervisors who had allegedly been hostile with the former chef directed her to “lift and transport heavy food items across the street and uphill without assistance,” the documents say.
As a result of the physical exertion, the former chef claims that she “became dizzy, began choking and gasping for air, and required assistance from security personnel, who intervened by providing water and aid.”
Around Feb. 1, 2025, the then-chef, five months’ pregnant at the time, was assigned to work Jenner’s child’s birthday event in Palm Springs, where she wasn’t provided “adequate support” despite the scale and demands of the party, according to the lawsuit. The former chef claims that when she asked for help and expressed concern over the workload, she was ignored by supervisors.
“Due to exhaustion and overwhelming physical strain, [she] broke down emotionally in the bathroom during the event,” reads the suit. “That evening, [she] experienced extreme physical exhaustion and heaviness throughout her body as a result of the prolonged and intense workload.”
The next morning, while the former chef was still in Palm Springs, the filing states that she awoke experiencing severe hemorrhaging and drove herself to the emergency room. “At the hospital, [she] was informed that there was no detectable heartbeat and that she had lost her unborn child.”
According to the former chef, she informed her supervisors of the miscarriage and medical emergency and, in the following days, was “falsely accused of leaving the kitchen and refrigerator in disarray following the Palm Springs event,” the lawsuit states.
The court documents claim that the former chef suffered severe hemorrhaging again on Feb. 8 and collapsed in her bathroom. The filing states that after the miscarriage she suffered severe depression and emotional distress, and claims that a supervisor reprimanded her, saying, “Stop it, just stop it. You are upsetting Kylie. You are making her depressed.”
“Celebrity status does not exempt anyone from California’s employment laws. We look forward to presenting the evidence in court and allowing the facts to speak for themselves,” attorney Della Shaker told The Times.
The former chef is seeking an unspecified amount of damages and claims that in addition to suffering accommodation failures, pregnancy discrimination and harassment, she was misclassified as an independent contractor, did not get paid on time or for the appropriate hours she worked, and was wrongfully terminated.
After being let go, the former chef claims that she sent a formal written complaint to co-defendant Tri Star detailing the alleged discrimination, harassment and wage theft. The lawsuit states that on May 22, 2025, the management team sent her an email offering a settlement and release agreement (essentially offering her money to sign away her right to sue).
The legal filing follows two lawsuits brought by former housekeepers of the embattled reality star. Less than two weeks after one woman on Jenner’s cleaning staff sued her, claiming her co-workers harassed and discriminated against her, another housekeeper came forward with allegations claiming the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star didn’t intervene while she suffered abuse from fellow staff, despite the housekeeper slipping the reality star a letter pleading for help.
Shaker also represents Angelica Hernandez Vasquez, who filed the suit against Jenner on April 17, and Juana Delgado Soto, who filed her lawsuit on April 29.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to block an excessive force lawsuit against a former Los Angeles Police Department officer who shot and killed a knife-wielding man whose speeding truck had slammed into several cars near downtown Los Angeles.
The court turned down an appeal petition from the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, over the objections of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Litigation over the six-second shooting incident has extended over six years.
Federal judges in California agreed that Officer Toni McBride had reason to fire four shots at the suspect in April 2020 but not the two final shots that killed him.
Daniel Hernandez was alleged to be under the influence of methamphetamine when he got out of his truck and walked toward the officer. She repeatedly ordered him, “Drop the knife,” as he approached.
But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 6-5 vote, ruled last year that a jury could decide the officer went too far when she fired two final shots after the suspect had fallen to the ground.
The majority reasoned that in the one-second pause between shots four and five, McBride “could have and should first reassessed the situation” and possibly concluded the suspect no longer posed a danger.
That ruling would have sent the case to a trial.
But the Los Angeles city’s attorney’s office appealed to the Supreme Court in October and urged the justices to review and reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision.
The city’s attorneys said the appeals court failed to consider the “totality of circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene” and its decision refused “to allow for reasonable mistakes in fast-moving, life-threatening encounters.”
UC Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky filed a response for the Hernandez family. He urged the court to stand aside and let a jury decide whether the officer’s actions were reasonable.
“The 9th Circuit simply held that it should be for the jury to resolve the factual dispute over what happened,” he said.
The justices had considered the appeal since late February before finally turning it down without comment on Monday.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled police officers may be sued for unreasonable searches and seizures only if they are shown to have knowingly violated clearly established law.
However, this doctrine of “qualified immunity” has divided judges over whether a particular rule or limit has been clearly established.
The 9th Circuit majority said shooting a fallen suspect crosses the line.
“It has been clearly established for more than a decade that when an officer shoots and wounds a suspect, and he falls to the ground, the officer cannot continue to shoot him, absent some indication that he presents a continuing threat,” wrote Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen.
“A fallen and injured suspect armed only with a bladed instrument does not present a continuing threat merely because he makes nonthreatening movements on the ground. … Under such circumstances, a jury could reasonably find that she employed constitutionally excessive force. If so, she is not entitled to qualified immunity,” she said.
The five dissenters said the officer made a reasonable split-second decision.
Judge Ryan Nelson said McBride “was justified in shooting Daniel Hernandez to alleviate the risk that he posed when he advanced toward her while armed and ignoring commands to stop. … She cannot be reasonably expected or required to reassess her shooting in a tight six second period during an intense and dangerous situation throughout which Hernandez was rising and never stopped moving.”
Judge Patrick Bumatay echoed this concern.
“Judges review police shootings only in hindsight. We review police tapes years after the fact. We get to rewind, pause, fast forward — analyzing the situation frame-by-frame. While the advent of police bodycam videos has been a welcome change, we can’t ignore that real life isn’t in slow motion,” he said.
A UFC fight card scheduled for Sunday on the White House South Lawn is facing legal challenges in federal court.
The watchdog group Public Integrity Project filed a lawsuit last weekend on behalf of two Virginia residents aiming to shut down the Mixed Martial Arts event, which has been billed as part of a celebration of the nation’s 250th anniversary. The event is scheduled to take place on President Trump‘s 80th birthday.
The lawsuit refers to the plan for UFC Freedom 250 as “illegal,” stating that proper authorization was not obtained to hold the event and to build structures on federal parklands, and “corrupt,” in that the president and others allegedly stand to benefit financially from the “private, for-profit sports event.”
“This is a profoundly corrupt scheme to enrich the President and his friends,” Public Integrity Project founder Brendan Ballou said in a statement on the group’s website. “If this fight is allowed to proceed, it will be only the beginning, and our national monuments will become little more than branding opportunities for the rich and well-connected. We plan to stop that.”
The group also filed for a temporary restraining order to stop the construction and prevent further planning for the event.
The National Park Service and Department of the Interior, as well as executives from each department, are named as defendants.
“This is an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory lawsuit brought simply to prevent President Trump from hosting what will undoubtedly go down as one of the most historic sporting events in our Nation’s history during our semiquincentennial celebration,” a Trump administration official said in a statement emailed to The Times.
“This iconic event is no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year.”
According to the lawsuit, UFC Freedom 250 violates NPS policy that prohibits sporting events on the South Lawn. In addition, it states that the plans for the event did not receive approval from Congress to construct a massive structure on the lawn and did not undergo a required environmental review before construction.
Construction started late last month on a massive octagon with an open overhead dome and around 5,000 arena seats.
Last year, the NPS established a temporary rule that allows “special events planned, organized, and executed by executive departments and agencies or the Semiquincentennial Commission for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence” on Washington’s monumental grounds.
The lawsuit states, however, that the rule does not apply to Sunday’s MMA event.
“UFC Freedom 250 is a private, for-profit sporting event being ‘planned, organized, and executed’ by the UFC, its broadcast partners, and its advertisers, not by the federal government,” the filing states.
“And it is not in any material sense a ‘celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence’ — it is, instead, a celebration of the UFC’s brand and the 80th anniversary of Donald Trump’s birth.”
UFC and parent company TKO are said to be footing the bill for the reported $60 million event. Still, it’s a massive platform for UFC, which longtime Trump friend and supporter Dana White runs. The president reportedly bought between $15,000 and $50,000 of TKO stock earlier this year.
No tickets are being sold to the general public. Most of the 5,000 seats next to the White House will be given to military members, while thousands of others will be able to watch on big screens in nearby parks. The event also will stream live exclusively on Paramount+, which is controlled by Trump allies Larry and David Ellison.
“This will be one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history, and President Trump hosting it at the White House is a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement. “Anyone who finds a problem with that clearly suffers from a severe and incurable disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
Nick Pasqual, the “How I Met Your Mother” actor who was found guilty of attempted murder of his ex-girlfriend last month, faces new legal fire.
Makeup artist Allie Shehorn, Pasqual’s ex-girlfriend, on Tuesday sued the actor for sexual battery, assault and negligence, among other counts, according to a lawsuit submitted in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The 17-page complaint echoes details about the May 2024 stabbing that led to Pasqual’s arrest two years ago and his attempted murder conviction. Pasqual was also convicted of injuring a spouse or partner, first-degree burglary and rape.
Legal representatives for Pasqual did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
According to the lawsuit, Shehorn and Pasqual began dating in 2023 and the actor “engaged in a continuing pattern of controlling, coercive, threatening and physically violent conduct” throughout their relationship. Shehorn alleges Pasqual “used force, threats, coercion and physical retraint” to rape and sexually assault her in April 2024. Pasqual also allegedly continued to engage in “escalating threatening” behavior, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit resurfaces allegations that Pasqual unlawfully entered Shehorn’s home in Sunland a month after he raped her and stabbed her with a knife more than 20 times, “intending to kill her.” The Times previously reported that Shehorn’s friend Christine White found the makeup artist — who filed a restraining order against her former partner — lying in a pool of blood and that Shehorn underwent emergency surgery and remained in the ICU for several days.
Pasqual was arrested May 31, 2024, at a border checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas. The actor, who met Shehorn on the set of Zack Snyder’s “Rebel Moon,” was convicted after a jury trial and will be sentenced on June 2. He could face a maximum sentence of life in state prison.
Shehorn is also suing Pasqual for gender violence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act. She seeks an unspecified amount in damages, including medical expenses and lost wages.
Time staff writer Cerys Davies and former Times staff writer Nathan Solis contributed to this report.
