Fredric Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 2 F.4th 276

Puma, during a 2015–16 proxy contest with shareholder Fredric Eshelman, published an investor presentation asserting Eshelman was “involved in clinical trial fraud” and was “replaced as CEO of PPD in 2009” after testifying about fraud. The slides were titled “Eshelman Continues to Demonstrate a Lack of Integrity.”
The presentation was posted on Puma’s investor site (viewed ~198 times) and filed with the SEC; Eshelman (a North Carolina resident) sued Puma (Delaware corp., Calif. HQ) for defamation per se in North Carolina state law (diversity jurisdiction).
The district court denied Puma’s personal-jurisdiction challenge (parties had stipulated jurisdiction), granted summary judgment for Eshelman that the two statements were defamatory per se, and submitted falsity, actual malice, and damages to a jury.
The jury found for Eshelman, awarding $15.85M compensatory and $6.5M punitive (total $22.35M). The district court denied Puma’s motions for a new trial or remittitur and denied Eshelman’s request for attorneys’ fees.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed liability (including the defamatory-per-se rulings and the verdict form), rejected Puma’s challenges to those rulings, but concluded the damages award was unsupported by the evidence and excessive; it vacated the compensatory and punitive awards and remanded for a new trial on damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction	Eshelman: parties stipulated; jurisdiction proper	Puma: lacked sufficient contacts; dismissal warranted	Puma waived challenge by stipulating jurisdiction; denial affirmed
Defamatory per se status of two slides	Eshelman: statements plainly accuse him of culpable involvement and job removal due to fraud	Puma: statements ambiguous; could be innocuous or nonculpable (“involved in” or merely “replaced”)	Affirmed as libel per se — in context ordinary reader would infer culpable involvement and impeachment of his professional reputation
Verdict form accuracy	Eshelman: form, read with presentation and instructions, fairly presented issues	Puma: insertion of “after being” and conflation of separate statements prejudiced jury	Verdict form was adequate when read as a whole; no new trial for form error
Excessiveness and sufficiency of damages	Eshelman: presumed damages for per se libel justify award; pointed to reputational harm	Puma: no evidence of actual harm, limited publication, fluctuating/unsubstantiated estimates — award is excessive	Damages award unsupported and excessive; appellate court vacated compensatory and punitive awards and remanded for a new trial on damages (remittitur rejected because court could not reliably set a lawful upper limit)

Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co., 350 U.S. 495 (1956) (stipulation to jurisdiction waives later challenge)
Renwick v. News & Observer Publ’g Co., 312 S.E.2d 405 (N.C. 1984) (single-meaning test and libel per se framework)
Flake v. Greensboro News Co., 195 S.E. 55 (N.C. 1938) (presumption of general damages for defamatory per se statements)
Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 568 S.E.2d 893 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (importance of context in determining meaning)
Fontenot v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 736 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for excessive damages)
Konkel v. Bob Evans Farms Inc., 165 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 1999) (identify the outermost award that could be sustained when considering remittitur)
Cline v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998) (new trial nisi remittitur and Seventh Amendment considerations)
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (apply state law standards for excessiveness review in diversity cases)
Benjamin v. Sparks, 986 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2021) (holistic review standard for verdict forms)
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (apply state substantive law in diversity cases)