Why Anil Ambani wants $2.1 billion from his brother, Mukesh Ambani of Reliance; Arthur Sulzberger Jr of The New York Times and the Romantic Realist
Raju Narisetti -
Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:43 AM
Stories in Indian media about estranged billionaire brothers, Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries Ltd, India's most valuable company by market capitalization, and Anil Ambani, of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, shaking hands at a meeting of industrialists, and resulting, usual speculation of a potential thaw between them, reminded me of this legal notice.
Anil Ambani has formally sued his brother Mukesh Ambani along with Arthur Sulzberger Jr, chairman of The New York Times Co; Clark Hoyt, public editor of The New York Times; Anand Giridharadas, an India-based reporter for NYT; Mint's publisher and owner HT Media Ltd; the Mumbai newspaper DNA and its publisher and owner Diligent Media Corp; DNA editor R. Jagannathan, and yours truly, Raju Narisetti, in the Bombay High Court over a New York Times profile of Mukesh Ambani headlined "Indian to the core, and an oligarch" published on 15 June 2008.
Mint was the first newspaper to report, on 20 June, about the initial legal notice from Anil Ambani's lawyers alleging "defamation" by Mukesh Ambani. DNA then reported on 24 September about Anil Ambani suing Mukesh Ambani for Rs10,000 crore but didn't name any other defendants, including itself.
Since additional details are now publicly available as part of details listed in the civil suit No. 2728 filed by Anil Ambani in the Bombay High Court and involve three large media houses in India and the US, its owners, publishers and editors, as well as the CEO of India's most valuable company by market capitalization, here is a summary of the news from the filing:
Anil Ambani's suit claims that the article was "grossly defamatory" and constitutes "a serious libel" and seeks Rs10,000 crore (about $2.1 billion at current Rs47/dollar) from the defendants, in addition to asking the court to direct everyone to "prominently publish a retraction" as well as asking the court to direct everyone to "prominently publish an apology" and also pay costs of the suit brought by Anil Ambani.
The suit's central claim(s) revolve around two paragraphs in the lengthy NYT article, both cited in the court filings, and involving a direct quote from Mukesh Ambani responding to what the article said were his "friends and associates" saying was as an "intelligence agency" or a network for data collection that allegedly existed at Reliance prior to both brothers going their separate ways, and describing what happened to that effort. The two paragraphs include this sentence: "A spokesman for Anil Ambani declined to comment."
Anil Ambani (the Plaintiff) claims in the suit that "the intent and/or obvious effect of the said two paragraphs is unmistakably and inevitably to damage the Plaintiff's character and reputation and expose him to public hatred and ridicule."
The suit also alleges that the article's assertion that "A spokesman for Anil Ambani declined to comment" is "an incorrect assertion". The suit claims "the Plaintiff does not have a spokesman" and attachments to the suit go on to explain why the "spokesman" in question, Gaurav Wahi, wasn't and couldn't have been Anil Ambani's spokesman.
Mint and yours truly, as editor of Mint, get into the picture because, as part of its syndication agreement with The New York Times, Mint reproduced the article "verbatim" as the suit notes, including using the same headline as the original NYT story, crediting both the reporter with a byline as well as the source and NYT's copyright.
DNA ran what it labeled, from the story, as excerpts of an "interview" with Mukesh Ambani under a headline "We've never paid a bribe, or broken a rule." In supporting attachments, the Anil Ambani suit also submits the front page clarification that DNA later published on 16 July 2008 that had said: "DNA regrets the publication (on June 17 2008) of an article syndicated by the (NYT) which seemed to suggest that activities like bribery, snooping on rivals, etc, were done by a unit headed by Anil Ambani before the Reliance demerger. DNA does not normally cross-check syndicated items for veracity, and will additionally publish any clarification or retraction authorised by NYT."
In supporting attachments, the Anil Ambani suit says that DNA "apology and clarification apart from being insufficient cannot absolve your clients from the grave offence which they have committed." The suit also singles out DNA's reproduction of the NYT article noting that the DNA version of the article "was accompanied by a sensational, prominent and catchy sub-caption which stated ‘Demerging Dirty Work."
Given the wide net cast by the suit, this Romantic Realist is a bit surprised that the suit has decided to ignore The International Herald Tribune, which is owned by The New York Times and whose India edition, printed and published from Hyderabad with veteran journalist M.J. Akbar as its "editor", which actually ran the same article on its front page in India, under the headline "A tycoon for the new India, loyal to the old."
Anyway, the next step in the legal process is scheduled to come in February.