Bruce S. Rosen Secures Appellate Victory Clarifying New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP Law

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden P.C. is proud to announce that partner Bruce S. Rosen secured a significant victory before the New Jersey Appellate Division in a case clarifying the scope of the state’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute.

In Holtec International v. Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C., the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of a defamation action brought against a law firm which shared information about a lawsuit it has filed against Holtec on social media, concluding that the commercial speech exception to UPEPA did not apply, and the social media posts were a matter of public concern and therefore qualified for protection under UPEPA.

Writing for the court, Judge Lorraine Augustini explained that the underlying dispute involved whistleblower allegations concerning financial information provided to prospective investors by a company operating in the highly regulated nuclear power industry. The court found that the subject matter implicated issues of public concern and rejected the argument that the law firm’s communications constituted commercial speech simply because it sells legal services.

Bruce, who represented Javerbaum Wurgaft, noted that the decision provides important guidance for attorneys and law firms communicating about pending litigation. While emphasizing that ordinary defamation principles continue to apply, he explained that the ruling confirms such communications are not automatically excluded from UPEPA’s protections under the statute’s commercial speech exception. The ruling also made clear that in public defamation suits, plaintiffs must set forth a factual basis for an actual malice (the defendant’s knowledge that what he/she published is false), which is an essential element of defamation

"Ordinary defamation rules apply. But if you're touting your filing or you're touting an opinion that you received, you've got to be as accurate as possible, and it's not going to be under this commercial exception," Rosen said.

The decision marks Bruce’s fourth Appellate Division victory interpreting UPEPA in the past eight months, further contributing to the developing body of case law surrounding New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute.

To read more about the case in the New Jersey Law Journal, click here.

To read more about Rosen and his work, click here.