Oil Magnate Claimed He Was Defamed By Court Brief
On Jan. 10, 2005, plaintiff Jose Ramiro Garza Cantu, a Mexican businessman who owns more than 20 companies that provide oil-related services, was named in an amicus brief that was filed in a forfeiture action that was being heard in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District. The brief was filed by Billy Flanigan, and it addressed the court’s decision to restrain funds that were owned by the Petroleum Workers Union of the Republic of Mexico. Flanigan claimed that a 1986 default judgment established that he was entitled to $92 million of the funds. His brief alleged that Cantu and others had committed acts of corruption, money-laundering, murder and racketeering. Flanigan’s claims were initially communicated to a reporter who was employed by Mexico City-based Proceso magazine. The reporter was given a copy of the then-unfiled brief, and the brief’s allegations were widely published by members of the Mexican media.Cantu sued Flanigan. Cantu alleged that he was defamed by Flanigan’s allegations.
Flanigan commenced a counterclaim. He alleged that Cantu attempted to prevent his recovery of the default judgment and that Cantu’s actions constituted intentional interference with a contract. The counterclaim was dismissed.
Cantu’s counsel claimed that Flanigan’s brief included false, defamatory allegations.
Flanigan contended that the brief’s contents were true and that it was protected by judicial privilege.
Cantu claimed that Flanigan’s allegations damaged his business reputation and his personal reputation. He also claimed that the allegations resulted in a loss of goodwill.
Cantu’s counsel presented a Greek businessman, who claimed that Flanigan’s allegations prompted his termination of a $289 million contract that involved his purchase of eight oil vessels that Cantu intended to sell. Two vessels were ultimately sold; another was leased.
Cantu’s counsel also claimed that Cantu was denied a contracted job for which he had submitted the lowest bid. They contended that the denial was another adverse result of Flanigan’s allegations.
Cantu’s expert forensic economist opined that Cantu’s economic losses would total about $38 million. Cantu sought recovery of that amount and noneconomic damages.
Flanigan noted that Cantu was able to sell or lease some of the vessels that would have been sold to the Greek businessman. Thus, he claimed that Cantu mitigated his lost profits.
The jury found that Flanigan’s allegations were false and defamatory. It determined that Cantu’s damages totaled $188 million.
Jose Ramiro Garza Cantu
$38,000,000 Commercial: economic damages
$150,000,000 Commercial: noneconomic damages
Post Trial:
Flanigan moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. He also moved for a reduction of the noneconomic damages. The motions were denied.