Chau v. Lewis
Decision Date | 14 November 2014 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 13–1217. |
Parties | Wing F. CHAU, Harding Advisory LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Michael LEWIS, Steven Eisman, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Steven F. Molo (Robert K. Kry, Andrew M. Bernie, MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, on the brief), MoloLamken LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Celia Goldwag Barenholtz (Gabriel Rauterberg, Annika Goldman, on the brief), Cooley LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants–Appellees Michael Lewis and W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
David A. Schulz (Michael D. Sullivan, Celeste Phillips, Paul Safier, on the brief), Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellee Steven Eisman.
Before: KEARSE, WINTER, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs–Appellants Wing F. Chau and Harding Advisory LLC appeal from a March 29, 2013 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Daniels, J) dismissing their claims of libel against Defendants–Appellees author Michael Lewis, his source, Steven Eisman, and Lewis's publisher, W.W. Norton, for twenty-six allegedly defamatory statements in Lewis's book The Big Short. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed each of Plaintiffs' claims. We AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment.
The United States' housing market collapse in 2008–2009 and the ensuing global financial crisis are widely considered the worst financial disasters since the Great Depression; their causes have been hotly debated. One of the many books that explore the genesis of the financial decline is The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, written by Defendant Michael Lewis and published in 2010 by Defendant W.W. Norton. A work of non-fiction, The Big Short looks at a “small group of iconoclasts who ‘shorted,’ or bet against, the subprime mortgage bond market at a time when most investors thought real estate prices would continue to rise (i.e., were ‘long’).” One of the so-called “iconoclasts” described in The Big Short is Defendant Steve Eisman, who managed a hedge fund and served as one of Lewis's sources for the book. Like many of Lewis's previous books, a great number of which have dealt with business and financial topics, The Big Short met with considerable success and spent 28 weeks on The New York Times best-seller list.
Thankfully, we do not have to weigh in on the root of America's fiscal crisis. The task before us is much more focused: to determine whether one chapter of The Big Short Chapter 6, titled Spider–Man at the Venetian —contains statements that are defamatory to Plaintiffs Wing Chau and his business Harding Advisory.
Chapter 6 comprises twenty-four pages of the 270–page, ten-chapter book, and one-third of that chapter focuses on a dinner conversation that took place in January 2007 at the Wynn Las Vegas Hotel during the 2007 American Securitization Forum. The dinner was notable in its design to introduce people who shorted the market to the people who went long. Eisman was in attendance and was seated next to Chau.
Chau, an “investment professional,” is the founder and owner of Harding Advisory LLC. He received a BA in economics from the University of Rhode Island and an MBA from Babson College. After graduating from Babson, he spent the next twelve years of his career in structured finance. For five years, he worked as an analyst specializing in asset-backed securities at Salomon Smith Barney and Prudential Securities, then spent two years as a portfolio manager at New York Life Investment Management. With the experience he gained in asset-backed securities through his work at those firms, Chau set off on his own in 2006 and founded Harding Advisory. At the time of the January 2007 dinner, Harding was a top-ranked manager of Collateralized Debt Obligations2 (commonly known as “CDOs”) and was on its way to issuing more asset-backed CDOs by volume than any other CDO manager.
Spider–Man at the Venetian recounts Eisman's interaction and discussions with Chau at that dinner and paints CDO managers in general, and Plaintiffs in particular, in a negative light. In response to this chapter's representations, Chau sued Lewis for writing, Norton for publishing, and Eisman for communicating to Lewis twenty-six allegedly defamatory statements (reproduced below). The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding that none of the statements were actionable defamation because they either were substantially true, were not “of or concerning” Plaintiffs, were not reasonably susceptible to any defamatory meaning, or were mere opinions rather than assertions of fact. Plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that the court erred in most of its findings. For the following reasons, we affirm.
These statements are as they appear in the book, except that the bolded language in each Statement is the language that was bolded by the district court in its decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LPD N.Y., LLC v. Adidas Am., Inc.
...not be completely true, but can be substantially true, as when the overall ‘gist or substance of the challenged statement' is true.” Chau, 771 F.3d at 130 Printers II, Inc. v. Prof'ls Publ'g, Inc., 784 F.2d 141, 146-47 (2d Cir.1986)); see Conti v. Doe, 535 F.Supp.3d 257, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)......
-
Conti v. Doe
...it must be (C) factual—that is, not opinion—and it must be (D) about the plaintiff, not just a general statement." Chau v. Lewis , 771 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir. 2014)."Whether particular words are defamatory presents a legal question to be resolved by the court[ ] in the first instance." Celle......
-
Jules v. Andre Balazs Props.
...California law determines these questions, and "such implied consent . . . is sufficient to establish choice of law." Chau v. Lewis, 771 F.3d 118, 126 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Breaking Media, Inc. v. Evan Jowers, No. 21 Misc. 194, 2021 WL 1299108, at *3 (S.D......
-
Rapid-American Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., & Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa (In re Rapid-American Corp.), Case No. 13-10687 (SMB)
...Accordingly, the parties have impliedly, if they have not expressly, consented to the Court's application of New York law. Chau v. Lewis, 771 F.3d 118, 126 (2d Cir. 2014) ("The parties' briefs assume that New York law controls, and such implied consent . . . is sufficient to establish choic......