NDTV-TAM imbroglio: highlights of NY Court judgment
The New York Supreme court dismissed NDTV's claim against Nielsen Holdings et al both on forum non conveniens and negligence claims.
The New York Supreme court dismissed NDTV's claim against Nielsen Holdings et al both on forum non conveniens and negligence claims. Essentially, the judge, Justice O Peter Sherwood, felt that since the majority of witnesses and the bulk of the evidence was in India, and any harm done, if at all, was done in India by an Indian company to another Indian company.
The highlights of Justice Sherwood's observations are below:
"So why don't you go to India with your lawsuit if you're really concerned about getting jurisdiction..." "...and by the way, you get TAM there, too." "Don't you think that is the place to go?"
"And if you want Mr. Salama, if you think that your claim here has to do with activities in India, most of the investigation was in India. Mr. Salama was in India. Kantar's affiliate that was relevant to this is in India, not in New York."
"It is not Kantar Group Limited. Maybe an affiliate, a separate corporate entity. Separate. That is not Kantar Group Limited."
"The motion to dismiss Kantar Group Limited for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted."
"All you're complaining about, the activities are in India. The players are in India. The records are in India. There are minimal contacts with New York. For all those reasons the case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds."
"Your complaint, as I read it, identifies TAM as the rogue and indeed the central player in all this; isn't that right?"
"But you are not complaining about the Nielsen Process. You're complaining about what TAM did with it."
"Because your client is in India and it was damaged, arguably, in India, not New York. Isn't that right?"
"There is a relationship between them (Nielsen) and TAM. No relationship between Nielsen and your client. Isn't that right?"
"In looking at the standards that, I guess it is set out in the SHAH case, the Shah of Iran, I thought that criteria number 3, which is the location of the potential witnesses and relevant evidence, does not have appended to it "except where the witnesses are willing to travel and where the parties are willing to move the evidence to another location." It doesn't give me that exception. It simply says, Judge, when you're looking at these there are 6 or 7 or so factors that you have to consider. Among them is where the potential witnesses are and where the evidence is."
"In summary, The Court grants the motion to dismiss both on forum non conveniens grounds and with respect to the negligence claim, on that ground as well. That is the Court's decision."
TAM Media Research the joint venture between Nielsen (India) Private Limited and Kantar Market Research, measures and analyses television viewership in India.