CINEMA DOWN MEMORY LANE 51ST ANNUAL GRAMMY AWARDS NewsNews IndiaIndia TimesTimes Suchitra Sen as Paro left, and as in the From left, Jay-Z, Lil Wayne, Kanye West and M.I.A, perform at 1955 version of the film ‘Devdas’, directed by . the 51st annual Grammy Awards on February 8. (Photo: Reuters) All About Issues and Achievements ‘Devdas’, the immortal novel of Sarat Chandra South Asia connection at the Grammy’s; one win and four Published Weekly • 60 Cents • Founded in 1975 Chatterjee written in 1917 has had an immense nominations. Nine-month pregnant M.I.A on stage on her Vol. XXXX No. 8 New York Friday, February 20, 2009 impact on Indian cinema. — PAGE 16 due date. — PAGE 15 ON THE HILL SPECIALS Grants & Schollarshiips Fulbright fellowships for 2010 - 2011; application deadline, October 20. RReemmeemmbbeerriinngg —PAGE 12 Giiviing ppiioonneeeerriinngg The Asian University for Women, located in Chittagong, aims to educate ppuubblliisshheerr women from diverse cultures and socio-economic GGooppaall RRaajjuu backgrounds. —PAGE 13 Pakiistan Testimony before Pakistan admitted for the Testimony before first time on February 12 HHoouussee JJuuddiicciiaarryy that part of the conspiracy in November’s Mumbai attack SSuubbccoommmmiitttteeee oonn was hatched on its soil. — PAGE 18 CCoommmmeerrcciiaall aanndd On the Hiillll Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), AAddmmiinniissttrraattiivvee along with 5 other LLaaww oonn HH..RR..66114466 Democrats, introduced H.Res. 134 in the House on February 4, 'Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of ‘‘IInn 11999911,, II wwaass Reverand Martin Luther King, Jr.'s visit to India’ and aasskkeedd bbyy tthhee llaattee the positive influence the teachings of Mahatma GGooppaall RRaajjuu wwhheetthheerr Gandhi had on Dr. King's work during the civil rights II wwoouulldd rreepprreesseenntt ...... ’’ movement'. —PAGE 6 Newsmakers Priya Singh appointed Press Assistant at the White House Press Office. —PAGE 7 Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is to deliver the Republican response to President Obama’s first speech to a joint session of the Congress on February Laura Handman testifying on February 12 before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law: (Photo: Videograb from the testimony) — Page 4 24. —PAGE 7

ADVERTISEMENT Page 4 REMEMBERING PIONEERING PUBLISHER GOPAL RAJU February 20, 2009, News India-Times

■ Testimony before House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on H.R. 6146 H.R.6146 , a bill 'to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defama- tion judgments', was introduced in the 110th Congress on May 22, 2008 by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), then member of the Subcommittee. Now he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee and has taken up reconsideration of the bill, which addresses the problem of ‘Libel Tourism,’ the practice of suing U.S. defendants for libel in plaintiff-friendly foreign courts, such as Britain’s. ‘I was asked by the late Gopal Raju whether I would represent...’ hank you, Chairman Cohen, Ranking by New York Times v. Sullivan for political ‘TMember Franks and Members of the ‘In 1991, I was asked by the late Gopal Raju whether I speech. Subcommittee for inviting me to speak about would represent India Abroad, a newspaper and wire A New York State trial judge named Shirley an issue that has been a passion of mine for service based in Manhattan which served an audience of Fingerhood refused to enforce the judgment. nearly 20 years. Indians living primarily in the U.S. He had just been hit She recognized that "England and the United [‘I am Laura R. Handman, a partner in the States share many common law principles of law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, work- with a judgment from a London court in a libel action law," nevertheless a "significant difference ing out of the firm’s offices in New York and the brought by Ajitabh Bachchan, a member of one of India's between the two jurisdictions lies in England's District of Columbia. I am truly honored to most prominent families.’ lack of an equivalent to the First Amendment appear before you today about an issue on to the United States Constitution." As a result, which I have been on the front lines for nearly she refused "entry of a foreign libel judgment 20 years.’ (Taken from her written testimony submit- granted pursuant to a standard deemed appro- ted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on priate in England but considered antithetical to Commercial and Administrative Law on Feb. 12.)] the protections afforded by the U.S. I applaud the heroic determination of Rachel Constitution.” Ehrenfeld and the efforts of this Committee in Justice Fingerhood's trailblazing decision was addressing the growing problem of libel echoed by Maryland's highest court 5 years tourism. My support is coupled with the great- later in Telnikoff v. Matusevitch. Vladimir est respect for the international comity con- Matusevitch, a U.S. citizen living in London, cerns that Prof. Silberman will undoubtedly working for Radio Free Europe, wrote a letter raise. I also have the greatest respect for the to the editor criticizing Telnikoff for "spreading British common law which is the very founda- of racialist views" in an op-ed column Telnikoff tion and genius of our legal system. had published in London's Daily Telegraph. By But I have had the dubious honor of being a vote of 6-1, the Court held that "The impor- introduced by my British counterparts to tance of that free flow of ideas and opinions on English judges as the American lawyer who got matters of public concern preclude Maryland's "our libel law declared repugnant." I garnered recognition of Telnikoff's English libel judg- that reputation because I was counsel in the ment." only two decisions so far where American Since these cases, the pilgrimage of libel plain- courts have refused to enforce British libel judg- tiffs, be it Britney Spears, Russian oligarch Boris ments. Berezovsky or Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz, they Bachchan explains better than any other case all have flocked to London. Virtually every — the profound differences between America demand letter we receive these days from a U.S. and U.K. libel. lawyer is now accompanied by one from a In 1991, I was asked by the late Gopal Raju Laura Handman testifying on February 12 before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and British solicitor. Libel tourism has only grown whether I would represent India Abroad, a Administrative Law: (Photo: Videograb from the testimony ) as the Internet permits even a newspaper like newspaper and wire service based in The Washington Times which sold zero hard Manhattan which served an audience of copies in the U.K., to be sued in London by an Indians living primarily in the U.S. He had just international businessman based on several been hit with a judgment from a London court dozen hits in the U.K. on its Internet website for in a libel action brought by Ajitabh Bachchan, a story about a Pentagon Report. In part, a member of one of India's most prominent because of the Bachchan and Matusevitch deci- families. To give you a sense of just how big a sions, the British courts have moved a step away deal this family was, if you have seen the film from strict liability and a step closer to a fault Slumdog Millionaire, you will remember when standard, albeit one that is a far far cry from the the star comes via helicopter to the protection afforded to the press by New York slums and Jameel, locked in a latrine by his Times v. Sullivan. With the increasing econom- brother, dives into the hole in the floor so he ic pressures, fewer and fewer media companies, can escape and get the star's autograph. That much less individual authors like Ms. Ehrenfeld, star, , was the brother of the can afford the risk of a more than likely judg- plaintiff in this case. ment against them in a British courtroom. In Both Bachchan brothers were intimates of the case of Forbes, that could be three judgments Rajiv Gandhi, then India's Prime Minister. since they are being sued simultaneously in The story in India Abroad reported that the Ireland, Northern Ireland and England for the leading Swedish daily newspaper, Dagens same story by the same lawyer. That risk is fur- Nyheter, had reported a new development in ther compounded by the English rule that the widely publicized scandal involving alleged makes the loser pay the winner's legal fees as well kickbacks by a Swedish munitions company to as their own, with British solicitors charging obtain Indian government contracts. India rates as high as £1,300 per hour per lawyer. The Abroad reported that Dagens Nyheter had result is predictable: U.S. media agreeing to out- reported that a Swiss bank account belonging Also testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on Feb. 12 sized settlements for cases that would have had were, from left, author Rachel Ehrenfeld, New York University School of Law Professor Linda Silberman and no chance of success in the U.S. and self-cen- to plaintiff had now been frozen by Swiss and attorney Bruce D. Brown of Baker & Hostetler LLP. (Photos: Videograbs from the testimony) authorities. Bachchan, an Indian national, sued soring by either not writing about public figures both Dagens Nyheter and India Abroad in impossible in view of Dagens Nyheter's retrac- fault, even negligence, much less actual malice, known to be litigious, not engaging in inves- London where he claimed residence. The tion. It did not matter that the plaintiff was a since reliance on the reporting of a reputable tigative reporting, or not publishing in the U.K. Swedish paper immediately issued a retraction quintessential public figure or the subject mat- news organization is what all news organiza- at all. No one — not the audience in the U.S. and settled. India Abroad reported Dagens ter was quintessentially of public concern, tions do and should do and what small papers or overseas — is well served by such a regime. Nyheter's retraction but refused itself to settle. involving a political scandal reaching up to the like India Abroad must do. In England, partic- I think HR. 6146 is an important step, mak- Since India Abroad's sole source said it had Prime Minister at that time facing re-election. ularly under the law at that time, a mistake is a ing mandatory on the federal level the Bachchan made a mistake, India Abroad had no defense It did not matter that all India Abroad did was mistake, news organizations are essentially decision. I have suggested in my written testi- under English law. In the U.S. the plaintiff publish an accurate story about what a highly guarantors of accuracy and Dagens Nyheter had mony ways to enhance its remedial impact. would have had to prove the charges false. In respected newspaper had reported. In the U.S., to pay. These are not minor differences I thank you for your time. I look forward to the U.K., India Abroad had the burden of prov- plaintiff could not possibly establish that India between our two bodies of law. These go to the your questions. ing the truth — an burden made virtually Abroad published with fault — any kind of core protections, the "breathing space," ensured (— Compiled by Ela Dutt) News India-Times, February 20, 2009 REMEMBERING PIONEERING PUBLISHER GOPAL RAJU Page 5

■ A conversation with attorney Laura Handman Laura Handman, a partner in the New York law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, successfully defended Gopal Raju, late publisher of India Abroad (and News India-Times and Desi Talk), in a U.S. court in the case of Bachchan v India Abroad Publications, Inc. (1992), where numerous high profile media such as The New York Times and The Washington Post submitted amicus briefs. The case set a precedent for Americans who were sued in U.K. courts on libel. The judge ruled that the fine on Raju's publication was against the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that protects among other rights, that of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression. She spoke to News India-Times after delivering her testimony on February 12, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, on the issue of ‘Libel Tourism’ — the practice of suing U.S. defendants for libel in plaintiff-friendly foreign courts, such as Britain’s. ‘He had a quiet dignity that was very steadfast in the face of this’ ered to come to the U.S. to enforce it. So By Ela Dutt Handman has received numerous accolades for her work - one there was never an opportunity for a court of ‘America's Leading Business Lawyer’ in National First to say, No, this judgment is not enforceable. Q. What are your memories of our late Amendment Litigation, 2007-2008; ‘Top 50 Female Super So he never tried to get the money that he publisher Gopal Raju when he asked Lawyers’ and ‘Top First Amendment/Media/ Advertising Super has obtained. He just used the judgment as you to represent him in the case? Lawyers’; ‘Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2008’; one of the a way to scare people off from writing about My memory of him is that he had a quiet ‘Best Lawyers in America’ in First Amendment Law by him. dignity that was very steadfast in the face of Woodward/White, 1995-2008 to name a few. So, one thing the Senate is contemplating this. And he felt strongly the easy way out for instance, is giving people who are the would have been to just cave in. victims of such judgments but who are, like But he wanted to take a stand and even in Rachel E's case, nobody is coming to col- though it would cost him money he wanted lect and enforce the judgment, they would to take a stand and I think he was very be able to have declaratory judgment action proud of the result. I feel honored to have that they would be able to bring to have it honored his memory today. declared unenforceable. Q. What was the stand that he took? And the Senate goes even further and says The stand was that this was a story that and also to have damages remedy against was so important to not just India but the person who brought that lawsuit. Indians in the rest of the world because it Q. You are proposing some amend- was an international scandal affecting the ments to the existing law. Could you tell ruling party at the time of the elections. us about that? What his newspaper did is what every Right. I thought that it would be helpful newspaper does. They report what another if in addition to the language that is in the leading newspaper reveals an important piece current House Bill which basically codifies of information. law that Raju made -which says that if And in this case particularly, where you someone comes to enforce a judgment in have a small paper, and the Swedish paper the U.S., if it is not consistent with the First writes about a Swedish company and action Amendment, and it involves a public figure taken by the Swiss authorities, the small and a matter of public concern, then the paper is never going to be able to have court must not enforce it. enough resources to cover every newspaper They can only enforce it if the judge in the world and they have to rely on report- decides it is consistent. That's basically the The late Gopal Raju Laura Handman ing by other reputable news organizations judgment in the Raju case. which is exactly what Raju did. judge was willing to do it. But then, the taken much for U.S. or other foreign people What I suggested that perhaps you could And in this country that would never next case that came up, ultimately, six to seek out London as a jurisdiction. also have a declaratory judgment remedy so result in any kind of judgment against the Maryland judges from the highest court in The other thing that has happened is the that that person, if nobody comes to the news organization that did that. That is Maryland voted that that British libel judg- Internet. That means that even a publica- U.S. to enforce a judgment, you could still considered to be exactly what they are sup- ment should not be enforced. That was in tion that has no circulation or very little cir- be able to have the judgment declared posed to do. the Telnikoff v. Metusevitch case. culation in U.K. can find themselves sued unenforceable. So you would have some Q. What exactly did the judge rule in But in making that case they discussed there. ruling on the merits of the judgment. this case? Was it the first such victory? the Raju case extensively. It was a trailblazer Because the way English law interprets The second part of my suggestion which It was. It was precedent setting. No that then led to the next precedent which 'publication' - any download off the the Chairman seemed to be interested in other court in the U.S. had held at that was the Metusevitch case. Internet constitutes publication. was to add an attorney's fees provision, so time that a British libel judgment was Q. From the concerns raised in the So if someone sitting in their garage in that even if someone did come to enforce 'repugnant' - which is a language of the Judiciary Committee case today, it the suburbs of London downloads from a the judgment and they were unsuccessful statute to our public policy, and therefore seems that what is called ‘Libel Tourism’ website which has otherwise no other pub- and the court held it was inconsistent with not enforceable. has become worse. Could you describe lication in England, then that one down- the First Amendment, the party resisting And this judge found that the fact that what Libel Tourism is? load can still constitute a jurisdiction from the enforcement could get attorney's fees. their point of view. Britain, as good as their common law is, What has become worse are two things: Q. How much of the recommendations Q. So why wouldn't everyone who is they don't have a written Constitution with People with very little connection to the that you have recommended in the law subjected to this resort to the method the First Amendment in it, and that that U.K. seeking it out as a jurisdiction because draw from the Raju case? makes a big difference as that has been the law favors plaintiffs. So that has contin- that Mr. Raju did? The law itself draws from the Raju case. interpreted in our courts in the U.S. And so ued with little rejection by U.K. courts, the Because of exactly what Rachel Ehrenfeld The law that has already been proposed she said, it was antithetical to the U.S. famous case being of Boris Bejofski, the was describing today (at the Judiciary hear- really draws from that. The experiences Constitution and she would not enforce it. Russian oligarch who had minimal contacts ing. She wrote a book which was not pub- since and the experience in that case. Q. So why did it succeed other than that to the U.K., but was able to sue the U.S. lished in the U.K. but because of Amazon, Because it would have been wonderful if there was one single judge that it magazine, the Forbes magazine, in the U.K. some 20 odd people were able to buy it in Mr. Raju did not have to pay our legal fees. depended upon? Is it so dependent on And the court in London said that he had the U.K. Sheikh Khalid Ben Mahfouz sued And that's what this amendment would the judge? enough contacts that he had a reputation in her in the U.K. have accomplished. Well, they didn't take an appeal. This London and he can sue there. It hasn't He got a judgment but he never both-