In 2010 Lew Geffen was dragged to Court when he tried to sell his auction company, Savile Row to Rael Levitt’s Auction Alliance Company.

Geffen’s partner’s in Savile Row took the matter to the High Court. Here is a synponsis of the case.

Lew Geffen

Rael Levitt

 

 

 

In the High Court matter between Geffen/Akoojee and Savile Row in 2010, Geffen contrived a scheme to sell Savile Row Auctions to the Alliance Group, without the approval of the Savile Row directors and shareholders.

Geffen had told Auction Alliance he could quickly get rid of the Savile Row MD and simultaneously withdraw his financial guarantees “so that the business will collapse in weeks”

Geffen promised Alliance a comprehensive due dilligence into the Savile’s affairs without any of Savile’s shareholders and directors knnowing about it. The court ordered that the due dilligence be halted and that Geffen and Auction Alliance be prevented from using any confidential information.

Stephen Thomson, Geffen’s trusted Attorney, contrived court papers in a manner, which were frequently unsubstantiated. By way of example, in the extract from the court papers in the aforementioned case, the opposing party revealed in their replying affidavit how Thomson, on behalf of Geffen, “made allegation that are unsubstantiated and unfounded without providing a shred of evidence, in a vindictive campaign, using sworn affidavits in support of their unsubstantiated allegations”

Geffen, via Thomson too uses the “urgency” aspect of a High Court application to expedite his cause, introducing elements that are aimed to convince the Judge that Geffen is a  victim of an urgent gross injustice, whereas in fact Geffen is frequently the real perpetrators.

The extract below from the court papers, summarised Thompson’s tactics succinctly:

“It is further submitted that clear and undoubted proof of the applicants’ (Lew Geffen and Akoojee) scurrilous, false and unsubstantiated allegations is the applicants’ reckless behaviour in bringing an application where:

•    they know evidence to be false;

•    they know certain allegations to be without any justification or substantiation; and

•    they ought to have foreseen a real dispute of fact.”

Neither Geffen nor Thomson have no morals or ethics when it comes to doing battle, and Thomson will draft affidavits for his clients without regard to substantiated facts or evidence and frequently entices his clients to make statements that are clearly false. Rouge clients and attorney exist in every walk of life; Thomson though pushes the boundaries further than most.

The following court statements, made in defence of the trumped up charges, in the same case cited above, substantiate the above:

• Geffen’s behaviour was unacceptable and disgraceful; to such an extent that it caused the gradual corrosion of the relationship, trust and goodwill between all the parties at Savile Row. Geffen’s treachery was the symbolic ‘straw’ that broke the camel’s back, and resulted in the respondents (and others) concluding that a continued relationship and association with Geffen was unsustainable, and would be tantamount to professional suicide;
• Geffen’s conduct was so deplorable and unacceptable to the respondents, that internal steps were taken against Geffen, including his retraction “from operational issues” and to act only as non executive chairman and director
• Another facet of Geffen’s cleverly laid out plans to collapse Holdings and Savile Row, became evident in April 2010, when Geffen sought to effect the departure of the CEO of Savile Row, Townes. Clearly, if Geffen could get his hands on this shareholding, he would be able to control the group of companies (with the help of “his accountant”, Bloch), and answer to no-one. This was ultimately prevented from happening.
• Geffen’s June 2010 offensive communication to staff: Geffen has sent, on a number of occasions, demoralising, insulting, offensive and inappropriate communications to members of staff within Savile Row, purely with the objective of demoralising them, and destabilising the business.
• Geffen’s September 2010 approaches to competitors: Geffen’s campaign to collapse and bring down Savile Row continued, when he approached competitors in the auction industry, with a view to establishing a new auction business. Geffen’s intent was to set up his own, new competing interest, to the detriment of Savile Row (the same company he now professes to “protect”).
• The harm caused by Geffen’s conduct: the constant fighting of internal battles within Savile Row, which battles were fomented by Geffen in his effort to destabilise the business, was another factor that significantly affected the respondents’ abilities to focus their efforts and attentions solely on rendering efficient and profitable service to Savile Row and their clients.

Thomson, frequently undermines the integrity of his opposition, labelling them dishonourable, unethical, scum, pests and the like, and if he does not get his way, he threatens them with various charges, High Court injunctions, contempt of court and the like. This pattern repeats itself time and time again.