Forbes Inc. and William P. Barrett v. Granada Biosciences, Inc. and Granada Foods Corporation

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that Granada Biosciences, Inc. and Granada Foods Corporation presented no evidence that Forbes Inc. and William P. Barrett published a disparaging article with actual malice. The Court concluded that post-publication events and imprecise use of the term “Granada” did not raise a fact issue concerning the defendants’ subjective awareness of falsity. It reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing.

Holdings

1. The court assumed, without deciding, that a public figure suing a media defendant for business disparagement must prove actual malice under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard.
2. The plaintiffs produced no evidence that Forbes or Barrett knew the challenged statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth; therefore, summary judgment was proper.
3. Events occurring after the article was printed and placed in distribution, including Barrett's later conversation with Eller and subsequent awareness of the Bass misidentification, could not constitute evidence of actual malice at the time of publication.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Granada Biosciences and Granada Foods produced more than a scintilla of evidence that Forbes or Barrett published the article with constitutional actual malice.
2. Whether statements or knowledge arising after the article was printed and placed in distribution could establish actual malice at the time of publication.
3. Whether Forbes's imprecise use of the generic term Granada, without more evidence of subjective awareness of falsity, constituted actual malice.

Disposition

reversed