WASHINGTON, D.C. September 28, 2005 — After five years of motions, depositions, discovery, and legal arguments, United States District Judge John R. Bates granted the Center for Public Integrity's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought against us by OAO Alfa Bank and two of its top executives, Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven.

In the opinion, Judge Bates recounts the steps the Center took in preparation of the article, “Cheney Led Halliburton to Feast at Federal Trough: State Department Questioned Deal with Firm Linked to Russian Mob,” by Knut Royce and Nathaniel Heller. We believe any fair reading of that account shows that we developed multiple sources in the United States and abroad, that we relied on official documents and knowledgeable sources, that we accurately represented our sources, providing both context and, where appropriate, caveats about the article’s information, and that we provided an opportunity for fair comment from Alfa Bank and its U.S. representatives.

The decision states that the Center and our writers, Knut Royce and Nathaniel Heller, “…grounded their article on several intelligence sources, corroborating documents, and a wealth of reports in the United States and Russian media,” and later reiterates that, “the [Center] relied on a host of corroborating evidence in publishing the piece.”

The Center argued for dismissal on two grounds: that the story at issue, by Knut Royce and Nathaniel Heller, met the standard of a “fair reporting privilege,” because it reported information contained in government documents and proceedings; and, independent of that argument, that the plaintiffs were public figures, and did not show clear and convincing evidence of malice on the part of the Center in publishing the story.

Judge Bates ruled in the Center’s favor on the second argument.

As to the first, he noted, “The Court agrees with defendants that each of the ordinary prerequisites to application of the fair reporting privilege is met in this case,” noted that we relied on a Russian government report and added, “…the CPI article is a substantially accurate account of the report.” However, Judge Bates concluded that the “fair reporting privilege” should not apply when the documents originate with a foreign government.

At the end of the decision, Judge Bates offered some mild criticism of the Center for not including additional information in the story. We stand by our editorial judgments, and will quote the Judge’s wise words when treating the same types of criticism made by the plaintiffs: “…the failure to pursue this additional information does not evince a willful blindness to competing evidence, but only a desire to put a close to the investigation of a story.”

We are gratified that with this decision, the Court put a close to this matter.

###