A decades-long legal dispute over hidden wealth and financial disclosure in divorce proceedings has concluded in the United Kingdom, with Indian-origin woman Varsha Gohil securing a £6.6 million settlement after more than 20 years of litigation.

The case, which began as a relatively routine divorce proceeding in 2002, evolved into one of the most closely watched family law disputes in recent UK legal history after subsequent criminal investigations uncovered substantial assets that had not been disclosed during the original settlement process.

Varsha Gohil filed for divorce from her husband, Bhadresh Gohil, in 2002, citing adultery and unreasonable behaviour. The couple, who had three children, reached a financial settlement under which Varsha Gohil received approximately £270,000 and retained the family Peugeot vehicle.

At the time, the agreement appeared to resolve the financial aspects of the divorce. However, Varsha Gohil maintained concerns that her former husband had not fully disclosed his assets during the proceedings.

Those concerns gained renewed significance several years later when Bhadresh Gohil became the subject of a major criminal investigation involving allegations of money laundering linked to associates of former Nigerian state governor James Ibori.

Prosecutors alleged that Bhadresh Gohil had assisted in moving millions of pounds through offshore entities and financial structures spanning multiple jurisdictions. Following a lengthy investigation and prosecution, he was convicted of money laundering, forgery and conspiracy to defraud.

In 2011, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.The criminal proceedings revealed assets valued at tens of millions of pounds that had not emerged during the original divorce case. Prosecutors subsequently sought to freeze approximately £28 million in assets that they alleged had been concealed through an international network of companies and financial arrangements.

The emergence of previously undisclosed wealth provided the foundation for Varsha Gohil’s efforts to revisit the original settlement.The dispute ultimately reached the UK’s highest court. In a landmark 2015 ruling, the UK Supreme Court allowed the financial settlement to be reopened, establishing that a party who fails to make full and frank disclosure of assets during divorce proceedings should not benefit from that conduct.

The decision was regarded as a significant development in family law, reinforcing the principle that transparency is fundamental to the fair division of matrimonial assets.Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the litigation continued for several more years as competing claims emerged over the ownership and legal status of the frozen assets.

The UK’s Crown Prosecution Service argued that the wealth represented proceeds of criminal activity and should therefore remain subject to confiscation proceedings. Varsha Gohil contended that at least part of the assets had been generated through legitimate business activities during the marriage and consequently formed part of the matrimonial estate.

At the same time, Bhadresh Gohil disputed ownership of the assets, arguing that they did not belong to him.The competing claims eventually came before the High Court, where Justice Williams was tasked with determining the extent to which the frozen wealth could properly be considered matrimonial property.

Following a detailed examination of the evidence, the court concluded that a portion of the assets had legitimate origins and should be treated as part of the marital estate. Justice Williams identified approximately £6.66 million in assets that were not tainted by criminal activity and awarded that amount to Varsha Gohil.

In his judgment, the judge was highly critical of Bhadresh Gohil’s conduct throughout the litigation and related proceedings.According to reports of the ruling, Justice Williams stated that the husband’s conduct was “at the highest end of the scale in terms of dishonesty and its consequences.”The judge also reportedly described Bhadresh Gohil as “thoroughly and pervasively dishonest” in his assessment of the evidence presented before the court.

Reflecting on the extensive history of the litigation, Justice Williams observed that the Gohil case would remain memorable to lawyers and judges because of the complex and prolonged route it had taken through multiple courts and jurisdictions.

The proceedings have drawn attention within legal circles because they combined elements of family law, criminal law, asset recovery and international financial investigations. The dispute also highlighted the challenges courts face when determining whether wealth uncovered through criminal investigations should be available for matrimonial claims.

Last month, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that no further appeals would be permitted, effectively bringing the litigation to an end after more than two decades of legal proceedings.

The final award of £6.6 million, equivalent to roughly Rs 85 crore, marks the conclusion of a case that began with a modest divorce settlement and evolved into a landmark legal battle over hidden assets, financial disclosure and the intersection of criminal and family law.

The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.

In three decisions issued on March 25, 2026, the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation set aside rulings by the Paris Court of Appeal dated July 7, 2022, effectively granting the group’s companies the right to contest the judicial liquidation ordered by the Paris Commercial Court on June 25, 2021.

The case marks a significant procedural turnaround after earlier rulings in 2023 had declared the group’s appeals inadmissible, closing off legal avenues for Sheikh Al Jaber’s business empire.

Defendants in the case had argued that the companies lacked standing to challenge the liquidation, asserting that prior decisions rejecting restructuring plans and ordering the sale of assets had become final.

The Court of Cassation disagreed, ruling that the companies retained a legal interest in contesting the liquidation. It held that the functions of the companies’ legal representative were not interrupted, citing the retroactive annulment of the appointment of an ad hoc administrator tasked with exercising specific rights.

This reasoning allowed the court to conclude that the companies could seek to have the legal basis of the liquidation judgment reassessed.The rulings effectively reset the legal proceedings, referring the matter back to the Paris Court of Appeal, which will hear the case with a newly constituted bench.

The decision removes the finality previously attached to both the liquidation and subsequent asset sales, introducing fresh uncertainty over outcomes that had appeared settled under earlier judgments.

The case underscores the complexities of French insolvency law, particularly around procedural rights and the status of company representatives during restructuring and liquidation phases.

By reopening the dispute, the Court of Cassation has signaled that procedural irregularities, especially those involving the appointment and revocation of legal authority figures, can have far-reaching consequences on the validity of liquidation orders.

A Los Angeles jury has found Meta and YouTube liable for designing addictive digital products that contributed to harm suffered by a young user, marking the first case of its kind to reach trial and result in a verdict.

The jury awarded $6 million in damages to the plaintiff, with Meta ordered to pay 70% of the total and YouTube responsible for the remainder.The decision followed nearly nine days of deliberations after a six-week trial in Los Angeles superior court.

Jurors heard testimony from company executives, expert witnesses on addiction and social media, whistleblowers, and the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified in court filings as KGM.

The 12-member jury returned a 10-2 decision in favor of the plaintiff on all key questions, including whether the companies were negligent and whether their product designs were a substantial factor in causing harm.

Jurors also concluded that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings about potential risks associated with prolonged use.

KGM testified that she began using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram, owned by Meta, at nine. She told the court that her use of these platforms became compulsive and had negative effects on her mental health.

According to her testimony, she experienced depression and engaged in self-harm by the age of 10.At 13, she was diagnosed by a therapist with body dysmorphic disorder and social phobia, conditions she attributed to her prolonged exposure to content and interactions on the platforms.

She also described strained relationships with family members and difficulties in school, which she linked to her social media usage.Her legal team argued that platform features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay functions were intentionally designed to maximize user engagement and create dependency.

During closing arguments, the plaintiff’s lawyer characterized these features as mechanisms that encourage prolonged use, likening them to engineered systems aimed at sustaining attention.

The plaintiff’s lawyers said the case reflected broader patterns affecting young users, arguing that similar harms have been reported by thousands of individuals and families. They stated that the verdict represented accountability for what they described as known risks associated with platform design.

Both Meta and YouTube said they would appeal the decision and rejected the jury’s findings. A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the verdict and maintained that teen mental health is influenced by multiple factors that cannot be attributed to a single platform.

The company said it remains confident in its efforts to protect younger users online.A spokesperson for YouTube also disputed the outcome, stating that the case mischaracterized the platform. The company described YouTube as a responsibly designed streaming service rather than a social media network and said the allegations presented in court were inaccurate.

Throughout the trial, both companies denied wrongdoing. They argued that the plaintiff’s mental health challenges were influenced by factors outside their platforms, including personal and environmental conditions. These arguments were rejected by the jury in its final determination.

The ruling comes amid increasing legal scrutiny of large technology companies over the impact of their products on younger users. The case is part of a broader set of consolidated lawsuits in California involving more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including families and school districts.

The cases target multiple platforms, including Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap, over alleged harms linked to social media use.TikTok and Snap reached settlements in the KGM case shortly before the trial began, leaving Meta and YouTube as the remaining defendants in this proceeding.

The verdict also follows a separate ruling issued one day earlier in New Mexico, where Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in civil penalties in a case involving allegations that it misled users about platform safety and enabled harm, including child exploitation.

Together, the rulings represent the first instances in which juries have held Meta legally accountable for harms linked to its platforms.KGM’s case is the first among more than 20 planned “bellwether” trials, which are intended to test legal arguments and assess how juries respond to evidence in similar cases.

These trials are expected to influence settlement discussions and shape legal precedent in ongoing litigation against social media companies.

The next bellwether trial is scheduled for July, while a separate series of federal cases involving hundreds of plaintiffs is set to begin in San Francisco in June.