The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Forbes (D) ran a column on pending litigation of interest to the business community. It covered the 203 North LaSalle case. The majority opinion in the Supreme Court required about 8,000 words to resolve the case. D wrote a 670-word article. What it lacked in analysis it made up for with colorful verbs and adjectives. D complained that 'many judges, ever more sympathetic to debtors, are allowing unscrupulous business owners to rob creditors.' It stated that a partnership led by Marc Wilkow 'stiffed' the bank, paying only $55 million on a $93 million loan while retaining ownership of a building. The article stated that. 'Wilkow and his partners pleaded poverty. To keep the bank from foreclosing, LaSalle Partnership filed for bankruptcy. Appraisals of the property came in at less than $60 million. In theory, the bank was entitled to the entire amount. It suggested selling the property to the highest bidder. Determined to keep the building, LaSalle partners asked the bankruptcy court instead to accept a plan under which the bank would likely receive a fraction of what it was owed while the partners would keep the building. The bank, not the equity holder, would take the hit.' Wilkow (P) filed suit claiming defamation by asserting that he was in poverty (or, worse, 'pleaded poverty' when he was solvent) and had filched the bank's money. The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.