Drugs purchase Libel case…US judge tells New GPC …‘Kaieteur News never libeled you’

Nov 13, 2013 News

---

–    Publications were in public interest, not mere gossip

In a huge slap to New GPC in its libel cases filed against Kaieteur News Inc. (Publishers of Kaieteur News’ New York Edition), a Supreme Court Judge in Manhattan, New York, Justice Joan Kenney, ruled that the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation (New GPC) never established that it was libeled.

The lawsuit involved reports published by Kaieteur News and highlighting the questionable pricing policy for drugs purchased by Government from New GPC.
Filing the claim for libel was Company Secretary   Paul Stanislaus Braam on behalf of owner of New GPC, Dr Ranjisinghi ‘Bobby’ Ramroop.
The action filed both in Guyana and the US, was intended by New GPC to stop media probes into the deals that Ramroop’s New GPC had made with Government.
Judge Kenney, in a decision handed down November 4, said that New GPC failed to present evidence to show that Kaieteur Newspaper Inc. (KNI), a New York-based sister company of Kaieteur News, deliberately published false information regarding the prices of the drugs.
Dr. Ranjisinghi ‘Bobby’ Ramroop is a close friend of former President Bharrat Jagdeo. His company has controversially been granted sole sourcing—the single right—to supply billions of dollars in drugs to the Ministry of Health and the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation.
Judge Kenney noted in her ruling, “Here, it is undisputed that KNI is a media defendant, and that Kaieteur News published the statements alleged by New GPC.
“It is also undisputed that Kaieteur News “is widely circulated and read in the Guyanese immigrant community in New York and elsewhere.”
“Moreover, according to the complaint, the overcharging, “price gouging,” and “corrupt[ion]” renders New GPC “an unworthy supplier of pharmaceutical to the Guyanese government.”
“The articles themselves make several references to the Guyanese “government” and its “corrupt practices,” the government’s collusion with New GPC in “shady procurement practices,” and the resulting “`direct[] threat[ to] the health and well-being of the people of Guyana.’”
“The articles also suggest ties between New GPC’s owner and the former president of Guyana.

The defamatory statements alleged by New GPC do not constitute “mere gossip” and they are not “directed only to a limited, private audience,” which would support the conclusion that they involve a “purely private concern.” Huggins, 94 NY2d at 302-303 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
“Rather, the statements involve New GPC’s alleged collusion with the Guyanese government, and the use of “taxpayer” funds to subsidize New GPC’s alleged price-gouging scheme (Complaint, ¶ 27 and exhibit C), thereby clearly relating to matters of “political, social, or other concern of the community.”
A series of articles published in June last year and focusing on the unusually high prices caused Ramroop to run to the courts claiming libel.
These claims were made against Kaieteur News and its New York edition in which some of the stories were published.
In its action filed in New York, New GPC sought damages for alleged defamatory statements made by the New York edition. The drug company wanted partial summary judgment for the non-existent libel.
One of the articles involved statements by Dr. George Norton, an Opposition parliamentarian. Judge Joan Kenney quoted extensively from the article in which Norton featured.
Norton reportedly questioned how Government paid money for drugs that could have been obtained far cheaper locally.
According to the Judge’s decision, both lawyers for Kaieteur and New GPC disagreed who had the burden of proving the truth or falsity of the alleged defamatory statements. Kaieteur News argued that New GPC must satisfy its burden of proving the falsity of the alleged defamatory statements, as it made statements of public concern.
Lawyers for the newspaper also argued that New GPC failed to provide evidence to support its claim.

Judge Kenney pointed out that in cases involving a media defendant, where the plaintiff (New GPC) is held to be a private figure and the topic of the article is a matter of public concern, the plaintiff is required to prove gross irresponsibility resulting in a defamatory falsity.
In determining whether the alleged defamatory statement is a matter of “legitimate public concern,” the US court said that the content of the statement must be “viewed in the context of the writing as a whole, and not as disembodied words, phrases or sentences,” and “Courts must examine their content, form, and context.”
“It was not contested that the New York edition published the articles, nor that the newspaper was widely circulated and read in the Guyanese immigrant community in New York and elsewhere.
“According to New GPC, the news reports using words like “overcharging”, “price gouging,” and “corruption” had the possibilities of causing it to become “an unworthy supplier of pharmaceutical to the Guyanese government.”
The court found that defamatory statements alleged by New GPC do not constitute “mere gossip” and they are not “directed only to a limited, private audience,” which would support the conclusion that they involve a “purely private concern.”
The judge made it clear that the reports by the newspaper point to public interest being involved. “Rather, the statements involve New GPC’s alleged collusion with the Guyanese government, and the use of “taxpayer” funds to subsidize New GPC’s alleged price-gouging scheme…, thereby clearly relating to matters of “political, social, or other concern of the community.”
New GPC’s former corporate secretary, Paul Braam who claimed that the statements that the reports were false, failed to submit any documentary evidence contesting the report by the newspaper that the prices of the drugs were too high.
“For instance, New GPC fails to submit invoices, bank statements, or evidence of prevailing market rates for the pharmaceuticals, to support New GPC’s conclusion that KNI’s statements were false. Nor does New GPC make any showing of gross irresponsibility concerning KNI’s published statements. Accordingly, New GPC fails to make a prima facie showing.”
Judge Kenney ordered that New GPC’s motion for partial summary judgment be denied, in its entirety, and that both parties appear in court again on January 9, 2014.

 

---

---