Financial Security and the Citizen Participation Act (H.R. 4364)
Whether we are dealing with banks, taxation, security, religion, or climate change, we need more than ever to find ways of encouraging, not penalizing, news organizations that try to report matters of the greatest complexity and significance. - Alan Rusbridger, Editor in Chief of The Guardian
The recent economic crisis highlights the need for an active citizenry and press to monitor and share information about the financial world. Those who speak up about financial fraud, waste or mismanagement should be encouraged, not punished, for doing so. Instead, they can face lawsuits that take months and thousands of dollars to defend against. Too frequently, those who speak out apologize, retract or “correct” statements about financial institutions as a settlement of a SLAPP. Even worse, would-be engaged members of society are chilled from entering the public debate by the threat of a lawsuit.
SLAPPs Against Financial Watchdogs
Guarano v. Stickney, CASE NO.: S-1500-CV 257485 SPC
• In 2005 in California, real estate developer Luis Gurano asked a local appraiser, Michael Stickney, to submit an inflated estimate of the value of an apartment property he was planning to buy. In exchange for the inflated appraisal, the developer offered Stickney $100,000. Stickney went to the police, and agreed to work with the police to investigate the real estate developer. He wore a wire to the next few meetings with the developer, and as a result of those communications, the district attorney launched an investigation and criminal charges were filed against the developer. In a suit with the hallmarks of a text book case of intimidation, designed to influence Stickney’s testimony in the criminal proceedings him, the developer brought suit against Stickney on nineteen separate causes of action, ranging from slander to professional negligence. He engaged in wide-spread discovery, including issuing subpoenas demanding personal and embarrassing information about Stickney. Stickney brought a motion under California’s anti-SLAPP law to have the lawsuit against him dismissed, and to recover his attorney’s fees and court costs.
Ampex v. Cargle, 128 Cal.App.4th 1569 (2005)
• In 2001, a former employee of the publicly traded company Ampex posted comments anonymously on a Yahoo! message board dedicated to the company’s recent financial troubles. Ampex and its chairman brought a defamation action in California against the poster and sought his identity. The employee filed an anti-SLAPP motion under the California anti-SLAPP law. Once the poster's identity was revealed, and before the court had ruled on the anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiffs dismissed the California action and re-filed an action in New York, where the anti-SLAPP law would not apply to online speech about financial issues. However, the California court held that the plaintiffs could not evade the California anti-SLAPP law’s fee provision, as dismissal did not strip the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion and request for attorney fees. (Ampex Corp. v. Cargle (Apr. 30, 2003, A099344, 2003 WL 1986056)). The court concluded that, because Ampex was a publicly traded company with over 59 million shares outstanding and had inserted itself into the public arena, speech about its financial mismanagement concerned an issue of public interest and therefore protected under the California law. The court further held that Ampex was unable to demonstrate that its claims against Cargle had minimum merit, and so Cargle recovered his fees. See also the amicus brief filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Stanford Law School's cyberlaw clinic.
Morgan v. Goldman Sachs Co., No. 09-14110 (filed Apr. 13, 2009) (complaint)
• In 2009, Florida blogger Michael Morgan launched his website "Facts About Goldman Sachs," which he billed as an "open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis." The site has articles and links to other blogs that have raised questions about Goldman's intricate Web of Capitol Hill connections and its ability to outpace rivals, and almost immediately attracted the attention of Goldman. Goldman's attorneys sent a letter to Morgan, claiming that the website's URL, goldmansachs666.com, infringed on Goldman’s trademark. The letter read in part, "Your use of the mark Goldman Sachs violates several of Goldman Sachs' intellectual property rights, constitutes an act of trademark infringement, unfair competition and implies a relationship and misrepresents commercial activity and/or an affiliation between you and Goldman Sachs which does not exist and additionally creates confusion in the marketplace." The letter also threatened legal action if Morgan failed to stop using the name Goldman Sachs. But, the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace seemed slim, not only because of the URL itself, but because the website included this disclaimer: "This website has NOT been approved by Goldman Sachs. This website was designed to provide information about Goldman Sachs to demonstrate how destructive this company is to our lives." Further, the site did not seek to sell anything in competition with Goldman. Florida has a very narrow anti-SLAPP law that would not have applied to Morgan’s site had Goldman sued him there. So, Morgan sought to turn the tables on Goldman, and filed a lawsuit in federal court that sought to get a judge's ruling on whether the Goldman trademark was in fact being violated. In July 2009, Goldman and Morgan settled the case, and Morgan continues to run the site.
Please note: Some of the information and commentary contained in this listing is based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information may be in dispute.