As a civil litigator, I am really interested in the timing of whatever action is being contemplated or taken against bull board posters. And whether the action is being taken by the company or by individual officers/directors (which isn't clear to me).

The SI post excerpts a communication signed by Teresa Tomchak, a lawyer with the firm of Farris Vaughan (the same firm with which Hector Mackay-Dunn practices).

The excerpt of the communication which has been posted does not say that litigation is pending. It merely requests that certain posts be removed and that the IP addresses of certain posters be provided. It is jumping the gun to assume that any litigation will ensue. Perhaps Ms. Tomchak wants nothing more than to identify the posters and to make demands to them directly, that they cease making any defamatory publications.

Let me say for the record that, as a substantial shareholder, I am immensely frustrated with the manner in which this investment has progressed (or not progressed?). I am particularly frustrated with the level of communication from the company. Having said all of that, however, I don't know if the company has very good reasons (perhaps legal or strategic requirements) to limit the flow of information.

And there are two things I know for sure:

1. frustration as a shareholder does not entitle me (or anyone else) to make defamatory publications about our company's officers or directors; and

2. defamatory publications greatly increase negative buzz and necessarily create downward pressure on our share price.

For those reasons, it is good news for me as a shareholder that something is being done to fight back against defamatory posts. And to be perfectly clear I will emphasize that I don't mean "negative" posts or posts which raise legitimate questions or concerns about the manner in which the company is being operated. I'm talking about defamation.

So back to my timing question. Whatever Ms. Tomchak is seeking to do, why is she doing it now? Why now when this type of negative bullboard posting has been going on for months/years? I wonder (I hope) that it has something to do with our liquidity event coming up on their horizon and the company wanting to generate some positive buzz without the distracting noise of defamatory statements drowning out that buzz.

Something else to think about, if litigation is being contemplated, then those who are suing (whether it is the company and/or officers and directors) will say that the alleged defamatory statements were untrue. Does it become more difficult to say that if the investment completely tanks? Perhaps. Truth is generally a complete defense to any allegation of defamation. The converse of course is that if there is a spectacular liquidity event, that supports a conclusion that Elmer et al. did a great job for us and that statements to the contrary might be defamatory.

The latter scenario is what I am hoping for, that they know a spectacular liquidity event is on the horizon and that they're going to be in a strong position to succeed on a defamation claim, if that is what they intend to proceed with.

Any other thoughts on the timing of this action?

neofight