Digital Media Law Project
Published on Digital Media Law Project (https://www.dmlp.org)

Home > Bradley v. Conner

Bradley v. Conner [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Fri, 05/23/2008 - 12:44

Summary

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Date: 

07/23/2007

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Location: 

Pennsylvania

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

Defamation
False Light
Kimball Bradley, an executive at Reunion Industries, Inc., a publicly traded manufacturing company, sued Herbert Conner, an attorney who previously represented Reunion, over posts Conner allegedly made on a Yahoo! Finance Message Board that Bradley believed defamed him and cast... read full description
Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Herbert Bennet Conner

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Location of Party: 

  • Pennsylvania

Location of Party: 

  • Florida

Legal Counsel: 

Stephen J. Del Sole

Legal Counsel: 

Dennis St. J. Mulvihill; Bruce E. Rende; Erin Wengryn
Description

Kimball Bradley, an executive at Reunion Industries, Inc., a publicly traded manufacturing company, sued Herbert Conner, an attorney who previously represented Reunion, over posts Conner allegedly made on a Yahoo! Finance Message Board [2] that Bradley believed defamed him and cast him in a false light.

According to allegations in the complaint [3] and other filings in the case, beginning in August 2005 and continuing through March 2006, Conner, using the alias “pun2dex,” posted numerous messages on the Yahoo! Finance Message Board designated for Reunion. Bradley alleges that Connor posted the following statements:

  • On August 10, 2005, pun2dex stated: “As badly as this company is run, there is no shutdown. Richard Conway (of Lc Capital Masters) is in and will be heard. The company has fresh cash and is buying raw material. It will show an operating profit this quarter primarily due to the sales in China by its CPI sub. So long as the bond holders sit still, there could be some upside.”

  • On September 1, 2005: “[Reunion] operates with a lockbox. It has no choice but to pay down the Bank debt. The Bondholders are stuck. The Bank takes all the excess cash and leaves only enough to buy material for production. Leadership is lacking, but well paid anyway. Check the identity of majority ownership in relation to the CEO and COO. I do not know how the outside directors sleep. There is a large lawsuit looming if someone should have the energy to file it.”

  • On September 20, 2005: “Richard Conway is running Reunion. At last someone with an IQ. He paid hard cash. The banks have been backed off and RUN will report around 20 cents, if it so chooses in October, not from operations, but debt reduction. They can now buy raw steel and make product. The Oneida division will be sold and the cylinder and pressure vessel business will be advanced. Conway will have a $4.00 stock in 18 months.”

  • On September 21, 2005: “I have followed the company for a very long time and read the filings. The Board is becoming concerned since Worldcom, in light of Sarbox, and well they should. . . .Kimball Bradley [Plaintiff] is still called COO, C E Bradley is still CEO, but the latter is CEO in paycheck only, and will soon be resigning at the request of Mr. Conway. The only way out for [Reunion] is to do what Conway suggests. Look for him to buy the junk bonds, reduce and control the debt and spur the growth of the profitable divisions. Check LC Capital Masters and Lampe, Conway Fund Group. Run (sic) needs management with a higher IQ than club handicap, with Conway, they get one, even if K. Bradley stays in as COO or even moves to CEO. He will not be calling the shots, except on the Golf Course.”

  • On January 1, 2006: “. . .the story is all of failure since the young Bradley took over and will not stop until he is long gone. Until that day, this company and this stock will bounce a little, but is going nowhere.” On January 24, 2006: “If you are intent on paying salaries, you must sell something in the context of this company. Check the President, who is a member of the YPO. That means he was unable to be employed anywhere else, so his father made him president of this company so he could hang out with other young guys who were born on third base and think they hit a triple. This company is going nowhere. The next big thing will be a revolt of the bondholders or the banks. The shareholders will not be happy.”

  • On January 25, 2006: “Our leader will never consider stepping aside to allow someone with the drive and intellect to run the company, so long as he has no other job prospects and strong cash needs. Instead of figuring out a way to make the company profitable, he sells assets to keep his check coming in. Go to GHIN.COM in Pennsylvania for Kimball Bradley and you will quickly see where the energy of management is spent, and only a small fraction of the rounds are posted so as not to upset his father. What a waste. The bondholders would be well advised to call his bluff, take control and get someone in who will put the company right. There are only a few assets left to sell, and at Kimball’s age he will need to sell them all just to pay his caddies.”

  • On February 10, 2006: “The market cap on RUN is $9,500,000.00. Check what the company was worth when currect [sic] management took over. Even at that number you could not sell the stock and hold the current stock price. What a waste. How do those people sleep at night? Subtract the debt from a reasonable enterprise evaluation and you are below zero. A monkey could do better.”

  • On February 22, 2006: “There is a [sic] apparent disconnect between blind optimism and business sense. A manager should get out of his office and go to customers, visit the plants and find new markets, new products and new businesses to bring a company above the profit line. He does not refinance a sea of debt over a five year reign, sell the divisions that earn a profit, add no new ones, shrink the revenue and raise his own salary, while buying a stadium box for his personal use with company funds, leave the office by 3:00 pm every weekday, work no weekends or evenings and pine for a job that makes ‘real money.’ This guy is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, and only on a part time basis at that, while he works on his golfing handicap. We write in the hope that the board will wakeup and find a real CEO. Will recognize that it has a duty to the shareholders and not to an incompetnat [sic] young boy who cannot find a job on his own. . . .At Worldcom each boardmember was required to pay 20% of his personal net worth to the shareholders because they ignored guys like me. It will happen again.”

  • On March 9, 2006: “This is just more rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. K. Bradley probably thinks he did something meriting a huge bonus or perhaps a pay increase, but look at what has happened since he became COO. Straight down for revenues, profits and share price. I agree he probably can’t sleep at night, but he should still put in a full day, although with his ability, the company would do better without him. Still, Dad likes him, so he gets promoted, GO Figure. After all the comments about YPO, I did some research and have concluded that they are circle of jerks or a circle jerk. Our Boy fits right in.”

Based on these statements, Bradley asserted claims under Pennsylvania law for defamation, including defamation per se, and for false light.

In October 2007, Connor removed [4] the case from Pennsylvania state court to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss [5] the case, arguing that the claims were barred under Pennsylvania's one-year statute of limitations.

On November 29, 2007, the district court agreed and dismissed [6] the lawsuit, rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the "discovery rule" should have tolled the statute of limitations.

Related Links: 

Justia Case Docket [7]

 

Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

Yahoo! Business and Finance Message Boards [2]

Content Type: 

  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Subject Area: 

  • Defamation
  • False Light
  • Statute of Limitations
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • Pennsylvania

Source of Law: 

  • Pennsylvania

Court Name: 

Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Court Type: 

Federal
State

Case Number: 

2:07-cv-01347-DWA (W.D. Pa)

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon 2007-07-23-Bradley Complaint (state court).pdf [8]
PDF icon 2007-10-04-Notice of Removal.pdf [9]
PDF icon 2007-10-09-Brief in Support of Conner's Motion to Dismiss.pdf [10]
PDF icon 2007-10-23-Brief in Opposition to Conner's Motion to Dismiss.pdf [11]
PDF icon 2007-11-08-Reply Brief in Support of Conner's Motion to Dismiss.pdf [12]
PDF icon 2007-11-29-Order on Motion to Dismiss - Western District of Pennsylvania.pdf [13]
CMLP Information (Private)

CMLP Notes: 

I assume appeal is still possible

No evidence of appeal as of 2/19/2009 - VAF

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:05pm): https://www.dmlp.org/threats/bradley-v-conner

Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/bradley-v-conner
[2] http://messages.yahoo.com/yahoo/Business___Finance/index.html
[3] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-07-23-Bradley%20Complaint%20(state%20court).pdf
[4] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-10-04-Notice%20of%20Removal.pdf
[5] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-10-09-Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Conner's%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
[6] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-29-Order%20on%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20-%20Western%20District%20of%20Pennsylvania.pdf
[7] http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-pawdce/case_no-2:2007cv01347/case_id-82765/
[8] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-07-23-Bradley%20Complaint%20%28state%20court%29.pdf
[9] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-10-04-Notice%20of%20Removal.pdf
[10] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-10-09-Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Conner%27s%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
[11] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-10-23-Brief%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Conner%27s%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
[12] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-08-Reply%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Conner%27s%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
[13] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-29-Order%20on%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20-%20Western%20District%20of%20Pennsylvania.pdf