Silvercorp Metals Inc. v. Anthion Management LLC
948 N.Y.S.2d 895
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2012Background
- Silvercorp Metals Inc. sues Anthion Management LLC for defamation and fraud; Anthion asserts an anti-SLAPP counterclaim under Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a and 76-a.
- Anthion alleges Silvercorp disseminated two letters and online statements to manipulate Silvercorp’s stock price for a short-selling scheme.
- Anthion allegedly prepared the August 29 report anonymously and sent it to regulators and major media; Silvercorp issued a Sept. 2 press release calling it manipulation.
- Regulators in Canada (BCSC) and the SEC became involved after the disclosures; Anthion later prepared a 17-page Sept. 14 report and posted it publicly.
- Silvercorp issued subsequent press releases and commenced this action; Silvercorp sought dismissal of Anthion’s counterclaim for failure to state a claim.
- The court granted Silvercorp’s CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, severed and dismissed Anthion’s counterclaim, and noted the anti-SLAPP defense did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anthion’s anti-SLAPP counterclaim is cognizable as to Silvercorp | Silvercorp contends no anti-SLAPP claim exists. | Anthion argues Silvercorp is a public applicant/permittee and protected by anti-SLAPP. | Counterclaim not viable; fails to state a claim under Civil Rights Law §§70-a, 76-a. |
| Whether Silvercorp is a public applicant or permittee under the anti-SLAPP statute | Silvercorp is not a public applicant/permittee merely for being publicly traded. | Silvercorp applied for and received permission from SEC/BCSC to issue publicly traded shares. | Counterclaim pleads Silvercorp as public applicant/permittee, but lack of direct challenge to an application defeats anti-SLAPP. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guerrero v Carva, 10 AD3d 105 (1st Dept 2004) (anti-SLAPP narrowly construed; protected citizens against public permit retaliations)
- Bridge Capital Corp. v Ernst, 61 AD3d 496 (1st Dept 2009) (anti-SLAPP requires direct challenge to a permit or license)
- Harfenes v Sea Gate Assn., 167 Misc 2d 647 (Sup Ct, NY County 1995) (anti-SLAPP provisions narrowly construed; protect public petitioners)
- Chandok v Klessig, 632 F3d 803 (2d Cir 2011) (definition of public applicant/permittee; government-permission prerequisite)
- Matter of Related Props., Inc. v Town Bd. of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 22 AD3d 587 (2d Dept 2005) (permit process as prerequisite to activity; anti-SLAPP scope)
- Guerrero v Carva, 10 AD3d 105 (1st Dept 2004) (reiterated existences of anti-SLAPP protections for public petitioners)
- Novosiadlyi v James, 70 AD3d 793 (2d Dept 2010) (examples of public applicant/permittee considerations)
- Sukhram v Singh, 56 AD3d 187 (2d Dept 2008) (permission to operate as context for public-applicant analysis)