I know this isn’t tax related, but this is a matter of interest that made me want to opine on this. I just finished reading a copy of the complaint filed by Daniel Snyder against the owner of the publisher of the City Paper which ran a negative piece about him. I am not the greatest legal guru that there is, but this case has all the markings of not surviving a motion to dismiss. Why? First, jurisdiction is founded in New York on the fact that the corporation that owns the City Paper is in fact resident in New York. Given that to get to that corporate defendant, he has to first pierce the corporate veil of the City Paper’s own corporation, he has a huge up his climb. To pierce the corporate veil, he has to prove that the city paper is the alter ego of the corporation that owns its publisher. No allegation is made that I saw which did that. Only that each defendant acted as the agent for the other on information and belief. I don’t believe that is a sufficient allegation to create an alto ego claim allowing the corporate veil to be pierced. Given that this defendant is the sole basis for jurisdiction in New York, would be grounds to have the case kicked out of New York.

My other thought is that even if he was libeled, he is going to have a tough time to get damages. He is a public figure and has to also prove malice in addition to an untruth. Even if he succeeds there, he’s going to have to prove that the article damaged his reputation. I am not sure that he will be able to prove that his reputation suffered because of the article. I can imagine if this were to ever get to trial the defendants would produce a parade of witnesses who said that they their opinion of Dan Snyder had not changed due to the publication of the article. I always remind people who want to pursue a libel case that the worst verdict you can get is a dollar. Yes, you were libeled, but your reputation was not damaged. That’s no vindication at all.