## Facts

- Marc R. Wilkow, a lawyer and real-estate investor, was part of an investor group involved in a Chapter 11 reorganization of a Chicago office building at 203 North LaSalle Street.
- In the reorganization, the secured lender was paid about $55 million on a $93 million loan, while the equity investors retained ownership after contributing new capital under the plan.
- Forbes magazine published a short litigation column about the case after the Supreme Court granted certiorari, using sharp language that Wilkow’s group had “stiffed” the bank and “pleaded poverty,” and criticizing the result as unfair to the lender.
- The column did not state that the loan was nonrecourse and did not emphasize that market conditions contributed to the lender’s shortfall.
- Wilkow sued Forbes, Inc. and the author for libel under Illinois law, alleging the column falsely implied he personally refused to pay debts and engaged in unethical conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the column contained actionable false statements of fact, rather than protected opinion, rhetorical characterization, or substantially true assertions.
2. Whether negative value judgments about Wilkow’s conduct in the bankruptcy process (e.g., that he “stiffed” the bank or “pleaded poverty”) are defamatory.
3. Whether omitting contextual facts (such as nonrecourse loan terms and market downturn explanations) can make an otherwise nonactionable publication defamatory.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for defendants on the pleadings, concluding the column was not defamatory as a matter of law.
- The court held Wilkow failed to allege a specific, provably false factual assertion.
- The court treated the challenged phrases as colloquial, figurative rhetoric and evaluative commentary grounded in essentially accurate disclosed facts.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation requires a false assertion of fact; expressions of opinion, value judgments, and rhetorical hyperbole are not actionable.
- Substantial truth defeats libel even if the writing is harsh; characterizations drawn from accurate core facts are generally protected.
- Colloquialisms must be read in context; phrases like “pleaded poverty” can describe a bankruptcy posture rather than assert personal destitution or nonpayment of personal debts.
- Criticism of business ethics (including accusations of greed or unfair bargaining) is typically a nonverifiable normative judgment, not an allegation of specific fraud or crime.
- There is no defamation duty to include all contextual or exculpatory facts; omission of favorable details does not convert opinion or substantially true statements into actionable falsehood.

## Conclusion

The court held that Forbes’s disapproving commentary on Wilkow’s bankruptcy strategy was protected because it rested on substantially accurate facts and amounted to rhetorical and ethical judgment, and the omission of additional context about the loan’s nonrecourse nature did not state a claim for libel.


Wilkow v. Forbes, Inc., 241 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2001)