By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

FOUR investors on Saipan were sued by a businessman who says they created and published false statements to damage his standing in the business community.
Kazuo Kobayashi, through attorney Michael W. Dotts, filed the complaint in Superior Court against Yoshio Arino, Namio Miura, Masaji Nakamoto and Sumio Uchikawa.
Kobayashi is president of FK Management Inc., which manages the property of Anaks.
The defendants are shareholders in Shangrila Resort Inc., and chairman and board members of the Homeowners Association of Anaks Ocean View Hill Saipan.
Kobayashi is seeking damages in an amount to be proven at trial “representing his loss of esteem in the business community; lost income as a result of the damage to his reputation; punitive damages for willful and knowing defamation; attorney’s fees and cost; and for such other relief as the courtdeems just and equitable.”
The complaint stated that Kobayashi owns several residential units at Anaks.
In Aug. 2004, the owners of Anaks began discussing the sale of the company.
Kobayashi said he was concerned that a sale to an investment group with less capital than the current owners could affect the value of the project and his units.
He expressed that concern to Anaks which resolved that it would not allow a sale to new owners with inadequate capital.
In Jan. 2007, Kobayashi learned that the defendants were in the process of purchasing Anaks.
He objected to the sale and expressed concern that the association had failed to meet for several years.
He sought to prevent or rescind any sale of Anaks to the defendants.
The complaint stated that on Feb. 8, the defendants “conspired to publish and did in fact publish the first written defamatory statements” about Kobayashi.
The defendants “sent letters to all association members and asserted that a different project on Saipan known as Paupau Terrace had fallen into disrepair and become a virtual ghost town because of the plaintiff’s management.”
The defendants made “other defamatory statements against the plaintiff, attacking his business practices and character, and asserting that the plaintiff had acted criminally.”
The complaint stated that the publication of the defamatory statements “caused the plaintiff to lose esteem in the business community and has cost him in the election of new members for the association board.”