32 F. Supp. 3d 1177
D. Wyo.2014Background
- In 2014 CNBC republished Reuters's 2011 article about Wyoming Corporate Services and its shelf/aged corporations business model.
- The 2011 article highlighted mass formation of papers companies, “hotbeds” like Delaware, Wyoming, Nevada, and noted potential misuse for illegitimate activities.
- WCS did not sue Reuters over the 2011 article; WCS then sued Reuters and CNBC for defamation after the 2014 republication, asserting twenty-two false statements.
- The court converted defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing WCS’s complaint with prejudice.
- The court held most statements, including their gist, were not defamatory, and any inaccuracies did not support defamation or defamation by implication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the 2014 statements defamatory in their gist? | WCS argues the article’s misstatements injure reputation and are actionable. | The gist is substantially true; minor inaccuracies do not defame. | Not defamatory; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Does the article imply illegal activity by WCS? | Article implies WCS aids clients in illegal activity via shelf companies. | No reasonable reading carries that implication; article states services are legal. | No defamatory implication; gist remains lawful and non-actionable. |
| Does WCS have standing to challenge statements about third parties (e.g., Lazarenko, CIG, EFG)? | Statements about third parties reflect on WCS and should be actionable. | WCS lacks standing for those statements; not about WCS itself. | WCS lacked standing to sue over third-party statements. |
| Does First Amendment press protection bar the defamation claim? | Publication by the press should not be shielded from liability for falsehoods. | Publication by the press enjoys protections; the court should avoid chilling effect. | First Amendment protections support grant of summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoblyn v. Johnson, 55 P.3d 1219 (Wyo. 2002) (defamation standard; substantial truth defense)
- Davis v. Big Horn Basin Newspapers, Inc., 884 P.2d 979 (Wyo. 1994) (substantial truth suffices; defamation requires more than minor inaccuracies)
- Dworkin v. L.F.P., Inc., 839 P.2d 903 (Wyo. 1992) (comms with chilling effect; summary judgment relevance)
- Pierce v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 576 F.2d 495 (3d Cir. 1978) (context and total meaning of statements; look to words in context)
- Spence v. Flynt, 816 P.2d 771 (Wyo. 1991) (opinion-based defamation analysis; context matters)
- White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (defamation by implication; rigorous showing required)
- Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993) (restatement of implication standard within torts)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for public figures; libel by implication considerations)