Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
Dr. Lachin Hatemi appeals Piramal Enterprises' denial of his January 11, 2016, request for access to the 2007 through 2015 tax returns for Coldstream Laboratories, Inc., a "recently acquired affiliate" of Piramal. Piramal denies Dr. Hatemi's request based on its position that it is a private company which is not subject to the Open Records Act. Dr. Hatemi disputes Piramal's position asserting that Coldstream "was a corporation wholly owned by [the] University of Kentucky prior to its sale to Piramal Enterprises . . . in January 2015." 1 He maintains that because Coldstream "was fully owned and controlled by the University of Kentucky prior to [the] January 2015 sale, [Coldstream] was a public entity and all tax returns of [Coldstream] should be considered public records . . . ."
Dr. Hatemi submitted his open records request to Piramal Enterprises and not to Coldstream. It is the actions of Piramal Enterprises, and not Coldstream Laboratories, Inc., that we review under authority of KRS 61.880(2)(c). Dr. Hatemi builds no case that Piramal falls within one or more of the eleven subparts of the definition of the term "public agency" found at KRS 61.870(1) other than to note that in their sale agreement Piramal "was fully informed that . . . [ UK ] is subject to the Kentucky Open Records Act . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Instead, he focuses on Coldstream's status as a public agency. Coldstream is not a party to this appeal and the issue of its status under the Open Records Act is not before us in this appeal.
We proceed no further. Nothing in the record on appeal supports Dr. Hatemi's belief that Piramal is a public agency. Piramal maintains that it is a private company. We find no basis to conclude otherwise. Piramal Enterprises did not, therefore, violate the Open Records Act in denying Dr. Hatemi's request for Coldstream's tax returns. Accord, 16-ORD-033.
Either party may appeal this decision by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Piramal disputes Dr. Hatemi's characterization of its "business transaction with the University of Kentucky Research Foundation," noting "certain factual errors."