iNDICA NEWS BUREAU-
Billionaire business tycoon Haresh Jogani, 77, has been ordered by a United States court to pay punitive damages worth $2.5 billion to his four brothers. Jogani has been found guilty of breaching a partnership agreement with his brothers.
In the 21-year-old real estate dispute in Los Angeles that saw 18 appeals, the court has also ordered the business tycoon to divide the shares of the Jogani brothers’ Southern California real estate, including 17,000 apartments, among the brothers. Apart from real estate, the legal feud involved diamonds, and trade.
The jury concluded that Shashikant owns 50% of the real estate partnership, followed by 24% to Haresh, 10% to Rajesh, 9.5% to Shailesh, and 6.5% to Chetan, the youngest, who is now 62 years old. The initial damages award for Shashi, now 77, was $1.8 billion.
Trial in the lawsuit filed in 2003 began over allegations that Haresh Jogani had breached a long-standing partnership with his siblings. The hearing on punitive damages is scheduled to take place on Monday, and it could see an increase in the $2.5 billion awarded to the Jogani brothers.
The Jogani brothers, natives of Gujarat, made a fortune in the global diamond trade and expanded their operations to Europe, Africa, North America, and the Middle East. The complainant, Shashikant Jogani, was the first to move to California in 1969 and establish a gem business and property portfolio.
In the early 1990s, Shashikant Jogani made his brothers partners in his firm. In his complaint, Sashikant blamed Haresh for ending the collaboration, forcibly removing him from the firm, and refusing to pay him. Haresh Jogani claimed that without a written agreement, his siblings could not prove that they had a partnership with him. But the Los Angeles court ruled that Haresh breached an oral contract. Shashikant’s attorney told Bloomberg, that according to the law, oral contracts are just as “valuable” as written agreements.
At the close of the trial, Haresh Jogani tried to have the judge disqualified over accusations of “racial animus” toward his lawyer and other misconducts. Judge Susan Bryant-Deason denied the allegations and rejected the claim that she’s “biased or prejudiced for or against” any of the parties or lawyers in the case. She referred the motion to the court’s supervising judge, where it is pending.