LatticeInExiIe wrote: CNInvesting wrote: What are babbling about ? There is always a presumption of innocence in any suit, civil or criminal. Thompson is accusing Cohodes of having damaged is reputation, he thus has to prove how this damage was done. You think he can just say ''Hey I'm hurt I want $3 million'' and it's a done deal ? Lol. Probability has nothing to do with it. Besides, a subpoena isn't issued freely even if you ask for it, you have to demonstrate in your case why it's needed and how it can help your case. Then the judge decides. Also, this suit is a personal one, and just read again what the filed claims from MT are. It's about damage to his reputation, not how Cohodes might have shorted CXR. You're lost here buddy. GL anyway.
sunshine7 wrote:
cn, you should read up on civil law process. MT can use subpoena to access any data needed. Second, there is no presumption of innocence. It is the law of probability. 51% is enough to win a civil suit.
I agree with you CN. I think that sunshine is googling something else.
I have did a bit of research and there looks like there are basically four defenses used in recent defamation court cases in Ontario. They are: 1) Truth; 2) Fair Comment; 3) Qualified Privilege; and 4) Absolute Privilege.
Based on Cohodes Open letter, I believe that Cohodes can use 1, 2, 3 or a combination of these defenses.
1) If the statements are believed to be truthful, then the statement can not be defamatory. Exhibits attached to the letter detail Biovail's saga. 2) Fair comment is that if the statements were made as fair comment the court would look at the BNN coverage and facts and the situation,
and a conclusion can be made that the statements made could be considered a fair comment on the situation at hand; 3) The defence of qualified privilege arises in situations where based on public policy, even where a person makes a statement that is considered defamatory,
Cohodes could make these statements and escape any liability if it can be proven the public good could be furthered in open debate. In his closing remarks in his open letter, Cohodes makes his case that he feels he is doing the public a service "who don't have the time or skill to research financial statements fly blind."
Cases like these seem to play out in court over a five year time frame. In Biovail's case, the SEC eventually did charge Biovail with fraud (they settled by paying a fine and Mark Thompson was not one of the executives charged but was Biovail's associate general counsel). The critics received $10 mllion in awards based on malicious prosecution.