Appellate Division Upholds $40 Million Libel Verdict Over Botched Investment Report
The ruling is a win for a team of K&L Gates in Pittsburgh.
August 01, 2019 at 04:10 PM
5 minute read
A New Jersey appeals court has upheld a $40 million verdict in a libel lawsuit brought by a hedge fund and its principals over criticism of their company in a report for prospective investors.
BackTrack Reports, which was left on the hook for nearly $15 million in the case, appealed decisions by the trial judge in the libel case denying motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and claims of legal error during the trial. But the appeals court found no basis to grant the company’s motions.
BackTrack Reports, a New York company now known as First Advantage Litigation Consulting, filed its appeal in a suit by NuWave Investment Corp. and two NuWave principals, Troy Buckner and John Ryan.
BackTrack began researching NuWave in 2005 at the request of New Finance, a London asset management firm that was contemplating a major investment in NuWave. BackTrack issued a report accusing Buckner and Ryan of theft and incompetence in their prior jobs at a commodities trading firm, Hyman Beck & Co., in Florham Park. Buckner left Hyman Beck in 2000 to found NuWave, and Ryan followed in 2001. BackTrack elicited those allegations in interviews with two principals at Hyman Beck.
New Finance, whose leaders had a favorable view of NuWave before receiving the BackTrack report, called off plans to invest in the company when they received it. But New Finance then performed its own research into NuWave and concluded the BackTrack report was without merit. New Finance ultimately proceeded with its investment in NuWave, but put $4 million into the fund instead of the $10 million it previously planned.
NuWave, Buckner and Ryan sued Hyman Beck, its two principals, as well as BackTrack. But Hyman Beck and its principals were dismissed from the case based on the one-year statute of limitations for libel actions.
A jury awarded NuWave $2.6 million in actual and presumed damages after its first trial against BackTrack in 2015, but the Supreme Court threw out that verdict because presumed and actual damages cannot be awarded in the same case.
After a retrial in 2016, the jury awarded $2 million in actual, special damages, which are based on measurable dollar amounts of actual loss; $38 million in actual, general damages, which are based on intangible losses that can be inferred from special damages and other facts surrounding the case; and $800,000 in punitive damages.
At both trials, juries were asked on verdict sheets to consider the relative liability of Hyman Beck, its principals, and BackTrack, even though Hyman Beck was no longer a party in the case. After the second trial, the judge entered a molded verdict applying the comparative liability ratio from the first trial—37% to BackTrack and 63% to Hyman Beck. Judgment was entered against BackTrack for nearly $15 million.
In the parties’ second trip to the Appellate Division, Judges Carmen Messano, Douglas Fasciale and Lisa Rose rejected BackTrack’s appeal of the trial judge’s decision denying a judgment notwithstanding the verdict concerning the award of $2 million in actual special damages to NuWave. That amount included costs incurred by NuWave to hire a public relations firm to rehabilitate its image and to commission an audit to submit to another prospective investor.
Noting that such costs came to nearly $2 million, the same amount awarded, the appeals court said the award was supported by sufficient evidence and BackTrack’s challenge “lacks sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion.”
The appeals court also rejected BackTrack’s claim that the $38 million award for reputational harm was not supported by the evidence. Testimony presented by NuWave of colleagues in the investment management industry who knew of the unfavorable report supported the plaintiffs’ assertion that the report affected the reputations of NuWave and its principals, the appeals court said.
The Appellate Division judges also rejected claims by BackTrack that the trial judge’s exclusion of a report concerning items that the plaintiffs deemed defamatory but the first jury found were was a miscarriage of justice. The appeals court said that decision “had no adverse effect upon defendant’s ability to argue to the jury that the defamatory statements were not a proximate cause of the alleged damages.”
Thomas Smith of K&L Gates in Pittsburgh, who argued for NuWave, Buckner and Ryan at the Appellate Division, said of the ruling, “We are very pleased with the decision of the court. We obviously believe it is exactly right and we are very happy for our clients, who have battled to try and restore their reputations for 13 years now in this litigation.”
Kim Watterson of Reed Smith in Los Angeles, who argued for BackTrack on appeal, did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute readDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-81
- 2Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 3'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 4FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 5California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250