Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Shrunk · #1 by **Shrunk** » Jun 11, 2013 12:18 am

A Saudi prince has launched a defamation lawsuit against Forbes magazine in a U.K. court for placing him too low on its annual list of the world's billionaires, the Guardian newspaper has reported.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal claims the U.S. business publication was off by $9.6 billion US when it calculated his net worth at $20 billion, placing him 26th on the 2013 list of billionaires instead of in the Top 10 where he felt he belonged....

"We continue to be bemused by Prince Alwaleed's ego-driven PR stunt," Forbes said in a statement emailed to CBC News on Friday. "Forbes still has not been served with any lawsuit. Our story raises significant questions about his finances, and we would welcome the opportunity to uncover further relevant information during the course of any hypothetical suit."

Read more....

Matt8819 · #2 by **Matt8819** » Jun 11, 2013 12:30 am

...Is he stupid?

Wait, don't answer that.

Imagination Theory · #3 by **Imagination Theory** » Jun 11, 2013 12:55 am

I'm With Stupid · #4 by **I'm With Stupid** » Jun 11, 2013 6:35 am

Is this another example of libel tourism to the UK by any chance? Forbes is a UK magazine. The Saudi prick is presumably Saudi. Wtf has a UK court got to do with anything?

Shrunk · #5 by **Shrunk** » Jun 11, 2013 10:50 am

In his defence, I have heard one commentator say that, as absurd as it may sound, the undervaluing of his wealth could have concrete effects on some of his business dealings, if potential partners and investors believe he has been misrepresenting his assets. So if Forbes has in fact been careless in assessing his wealth, he may have a case.

Calilasseia · #6 by **Calilasseia** » Jun 11, 2013 4:23 pm

Shrunk wrote:In his defence, I have heard one commentator say that, as absurd as it may sound, the undervaluing of his wealth could have concrete effects on some of his business dealings, if potential partners and investors believe he has been misrepresenting his assets. So if Forbes has in fact been careless in assessing his wealth, he may have a case.

Once you're in that sort of territory, however, £10 billion each way doesn't really matter. You're still one of the 500 richest people on the planet, and you're still able to bankroll projects that are beyond the reach of most of the other 7 billion people on the planet. This is a guy who, even if one accepts the claim that his wealth is underestimated, can afford, out of his own pocket, to buy five Nimitz Class nuclear aircraft carriers. This is a guy who can afford his own private blue water navy.

This is nothing more than an exercise in dick swinging. "I've got more money than you". It's fucking childish at this level, and frankly, any court worthy of the name should throw out such a claim precisely because of this.

Calilasseia · #7 by **Calilasseia** » Jun 11, 2013 4:37 pm

In addition, this is going to backfire on him whichever way he plays it. Because the lawyers for Forbes will stand up in court, and say "we enumerated his assets as best we could on the basis of publicly available information - if he has additional assets that are being hidden from the taxman by his accountants, we cannot possibly know about this, as we don't possess the investigative powers of a tax authority".Consequently, he either has to climb down and admit that Forbes was right, or else admit de facto that he's been a naughty boy and is hiding things from the taxman. Either was, he comes out of this looking like a prize dick.

Scot Dutchy · #8 by **Scot Dutchy** » Jun 11, 2013 4:38 pm

What an ego tripper.

I agree at that level the actual amount does not matter. Anyway how can you be precise about the amount. I presume he will have a lot of investments that could rise or fall. Those rich cunts should shut up and sit down.

Calilasseia · #9 by **Calilasseia** » Jun 11, 2013 4:44 pm

Indeed, most of the hyper-rich would probably prefer to have their assets underestimated about the time the taxman comes calling. Why else are so many of them so keen to hide so much of their money in places where the taxman can't get at it? Quite a few of these people would probably be happy to present a Forbes underestimate of their wealth as reason to tell the taxman he's got his calculations wrong.

james1v · **#10** by **james1v** » Jun 11, 2013 4:46 pm

I support him wholeheartedly. And i am willing to represent him in court. For a fee of course...£1 Billion? Don't defame me, by saying i'm worth less than that! :suspicious:

I'm With Stupid · **#11** by **I'm With Stupid** » Jun 11, 2013 5:41 pm

Calilasseia wrote:This is nothing more than an exercise in dick swinging. "I've got more money than you". It's fucking childish at this level, and frankly, any court worthy of the name should throw out such a claim precisely because of this.

Maybe he's a bit insecure about the fact that he didn't earn a single penny of it?

CdesignProponentsist · **#12** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Jun 11, 2013 6:16 pm

Wow. Must have been a horrible experience. I hope I never have billions to be miscounted like that. :rolleyes:

Imagination Theory · **#13** by **Imagination Theory** » Jun 11, 2013 10:11 pm

Shrunk wrote:In his defence, I have heard one commentator say that, as absurd as it may sound, the undervaluing of his wealth could have concrete effects on some of his business dealings, if potential partners and investors believe he has been misrepresenting his assets. So if Forbes has in fact been careless in assessing his wealth, he may have a case.

Yeah, that makes sense.

CarlPierce · **#14** by **CarlPierce** » Jun 12, 2013 3:39 pm

a Parasite on the rest of humanity.

Briton · **#15** by **Briton** » Jun 12, 2013 3:57 pm

Shrunk wrote:In his defence, I have heard one commentator say that, as absurd as it may sound, the undervaluing of his wealth could have concrete effects on some of his business dealings, if potential partners and investors believe he has been misrepresenting his assets. So if Forbes has in fact been careless in assessing his wealth, he may have a case.

The kind of people who get involved in those kind of deals not going to take notice of a magazine article; either way.

Oeditor · **#16** by **Oeditor** » Jun 12, 2013 8:15 pm

What does his religion say about it? Is he supposed to accumulate all that wealth? Which valuation does he use to calculate his annual charity donation percentage? Perhaps we should hope it's the lower sum, depending on what "charity" is the recipient.

Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Re: Saudi prince sues Forbes magazine for defamation

Who is online