Here's an extremely interesting development!
BankAtlantic Sues Firm, Analyst Bove for Defamation
- BankAtlantic Sues Firm, Analyst Bove for Defamation
By Edvard Pettersson
July 21 (Bloomberg) -- BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc. sued Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. and analyst Richard Bove for a report on possible bank failures called ``Who is Next?,'' alleging the institution was defamed by its inclusion.
BankAtlantic, a unit of BFC Financial Corp., sued for defamation and negligence in a complaint filed today in state court in Broward County, Florida. BankAtlantic, based in Fort Lauderdale, jumped as high as 31 percent.
``While Bove's report purports to consider which banks might fail, he failed to examine the health of the banks and thrifts in his report,'' BankAtlantic Chairman Alan Levan said in a statement. ``He only examined holding company data which, in at least our case, is meaningless information.''
The Florida lawsuit follows a North Carolina appeals court ruling in April holding that analysts couldn't be sued for expressing opinions. In that case, Nucor Corp., the largest U.S. steelmaker by market value, lost a bid to reinstate a libel and unfair trade practices lawsuit against Prudential Equity Group LLC and two former analysts for comments made in a report.
The Charlotte, North Carolina-based steelmaker sued Prudential and analysts John Tumazos and Paretosh Misra in 2007 after they wrote Nucor may trigger antitrust lawsuits and had ``monopoly dreams.''
107 Institutions
BankAtlantic's shares fell 25 percent to close at 90 cents on July 14, the day after Bove's report was published. The bank said at the time that the analyst mistakenly looked to the finances of its holding company instead of those of the bank.
``As an analyst, I feel that I should be able to say what I choose to say as long as it is objective and based upon fact,'' Bove said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television. ``In the banking industry, there is a fear that statements by analysts which are very negative could have an impact.''
Bove, 67, added that he wasn't aware of any other analyst ``that's been sued for writing something about the industry.''
``This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a misrepresentation of fact,'' Gene Stearns, a lawyer for BankAtlantic, said in a telephone interview.
click here for rest of article.. here
Video clip from cnbc: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=799544641
Posts
10 comments:
Moola,
Guess you should be more guarded with your comments also.
If it can happen there, it can happen here also.
Rgds
Dear Avatar,
Well .. what about our local press publishing less than accurate article based on unnamed sources?
Well.. how then?
And what companies making less than accurate statements too?
How?
Dear Moola,
Well, you see, they put a postive spin on things. So, no company are going to go after them.
Joe's like me are not gonna spend time taking any action against our local dailies even though we find out it's inaccurate.
Same goes for Minority Shareholders. You know Malaysians are generally laid back.
Guess things are not very fair huh?
Rgds
avatar,
How do we know Moo isn't RPK who is simply waiting for companies to bring him to court?
As long as bloggers comment honestly and factually, there is nothing to be afraid of.
On the other hand, crooks are more afraid to go to court.
They know they will be airing their dirty laundry there.
So, I would actually encourage more bloggers to blog and to stick to facts.
And yes, Moolah won't be able to go after all crooks. He must be selective. And yes, to those "selected" by Moolah, it is "unfair" to them.
But that is also life isn't it?
Seng.
Dear Seng,
I'm afraid what you are saying is rather idealistic. I'm grateful that Moola can call a spade a spade.
No matter how objectively worded, commentaries about companies must include a subjective element, i.e. an opinion.
Just pointing out that such opinions need to be fair to avoid any *unintended* repercussions, that's all.
This is Moola's blog, so he has every right to post what he feels like. I've absolutely no problems with that.
Rgds
Avatar,
I'm afraid your comments tend to throw more darkness from your insinuations, than enlightening ...
Let me highlight 2 examples.
1. "Guess you should be more guarded with your comments also" - avatar 5:14 pm.
I am curious - specifically which of Moola's comment should - in your opinion - be "more guarded"? Do you have a specific article of a specific date referring to a specific paragraph or sentence that you think Moola should be "more guarded"?
2. "Just pointing out that such opinions need to be fair to avoid any *unintended* repercussions, that's all." - avatar 1.52 pm.
You refer to Moola's opinions. And you insinuate that it is unfair.
Like #1 - would you care to be more specific? (which article, which date, which comment?)
I believe, you would do Moola a favor by pointing out the specifics, rather than insinuate he has done the opposite ...
Seng.
Dear Seng,
You are over-reading into what I said. When I said Moola should be more guarded, it was in the context of the article he posted.
Whilst the posts that Moola has posted is backed up with hard evidence, the language can get somewhat harsh, especially on his criticism of our local financial dailies.
When I say *any* such opinons, I was speaking in a general context. This is not in reference to any of Moola's posts.
I am sorry if this was misconstrued as insinuating Moola's opinions are biased.
Rgds
Dear Moola,
Just wanted to say that if I've accidentally hurt your feelings, I'm apologize.
I didn't mean to insinuate anything. Just wanted to say that you've done a good job so far, *BUT* to just exercise caution since it's easy to cross the threshold....
So far, you posts have been hard hitting, but always rooted in facts, so good job!
Rgds
Dear Avatar,
It's not a problem.
rgds
Phew...
Yup, will drop by the forum later for a look see.
Rgds
Post a Comment