Voluntary legal help / counsel needed. Anyone ?

(23-02-2012, 12:35 PM)KopiKat Wrote: I doubt that this will be the first and last lawyer letter you are going to receive. Perhaps to educate us on what may constitute defamation, you can create a permanent page which can be referenced by all users here.

I hope you're wrong on this count but that was one of my fears when we complied with the demands of the letter. After all, the forum is in a no-win situation- comply and open a can of worms for potential action from others in future OR resist and defend ourselves at great personal cost- time and money. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Thanks for the link. Have distilled the main points and sent to Cyclone and MW for review. Would be most helpful to turn it into a sticky thread.

Quote:I agree with fellow forumer Kichialo's post that the public do get to know the existence of a legal suit between the high profile case of OHL & Citi, and the most recent case of LHL, LHY & TR Emeritus.

If the details of the suit are deemed confidential between both parties, fine.
But the existence of this legal suit can be brought into light.

If not, why are we hearing suits of people suing each other everyday in the gossip papers?

I share similar sentiments but let us continue to thread with caution for now. Thanks to everyone for the support and let us continue making the forum a conducive place for sharing on investing.

Just look at CNA forum, i think they should receive few lawyer letters everyday.
So far members of VB are very discipline as compared to that of CNA, why target at VB ?
If the truth really hurt , should we stop telling the truth ?

(23-02-2012, 05:48 PM)cfa Wrote: Just look at CNA forum, i think they should receive few lawyer letters everyday.
So far members of VB are very discipline as compared to that of CNA, why target at VB ?
If the truth really hurt , should we stop telling the truth ?

The likely reason is VB is a very serious investment forum as compared with CNA. I think most serious investors do not take CNA comments seriously.

Another possible reason is some investors had probably emailed the company on the company's thread in VB and raised queries on some of the quoted allegations.
In such case, the easier way is to take down the postings via lawyer letters.

As for Truths, I could not say for certain that all allegations made in this forum are true.

cyclone Wrote:What is one of the world's leading research and teaching institutions located in Palo Alto, California ? Located between San Francisco and San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley ?

That would be Stanford University (with an N). There is no company named "Stanford" on the SGX. There are, however 2 companies with the name Stamford (with an M) - Stamford Tyres and St******. Perhaps you mixed up the names?

Or it may be Stamford Catering which is owned by Select Catering?

You guys are just torturing whoever that smart aleck was, that thought up the defamation thingy and got a big backfire PR stunt instead.

(Disclaimer: The opinion expressed above is mine and mine alone, not of any wishes to this forum, its moderators/admin as well as their pets involved.)

PS: Admin/moderators -> You all got pets or not arh?

(23-02-2012, 05:57 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: Another possible reason is some investors had probably emailed the company on the company's thread in VB and raised queries on some of the quoted allegations.

If I were a vested shareholder of this company, I'd hope that what you say is the real reason.

If not, and the said company's Exec/Mgr is actually spending their productive working hours surfing the net to look for potentially defamatory comments (in forums and blogs) on their said company or Snr Execs/Mgmt, and then spending $$ to engage legal counsel for advice and sending out legal letters, I'd be very worried about my investments....

I'm not legally trained. I'd like to ask legal sifu here if the statements like :
"ABC has done it again."
"I think its disclosure policy is questionable"
"XYZ is too proud to listen to suggestions."
"XYZ is seriously too rich, too successful for shareholders good."
"So much for being a listed company that is really more a pte ltd."
Are those statements are defamatory ? Please enlighten. If those really are. Forumers have to avoid those statements or you'll be charged with defamation.

maybe instead of figuring what is defamatory or what is not should think of someway to protect our forum members after all internet is suppose to be free speech we don't want rich or powerful coming here meddling in affairs and upsetting everybody.

Take a leaf from wikileaks whistle blower website. they use something called TOR acronym of "The onion router" what it does is instead of using traditional computer networks, their network comprises of several layers of computers each acting as defenses encrypting and decrypting network traffic as it passes making it extremely difficult to track the original source thereby protecting identity of whistle blowers.

Since the diplomatic cables have been leaked and made public every superpower in the world has got their experts trying to hack into wikileaks but I hear up till today nobody has ever managed to penetrated into wikileaks site. It makes sense otherwise the FBI too wouldn't be using it.

The Onion Router

(24-02-2012, 12:12 AM)cyclone Wrote: I'm not legally trained. I'd like to ask legal sifu here if the statements like :
"ABC has done it again."
"I think its disclosure policy is questionable"
"XYZ is too proud to listen to suggestions."
"XYZ is seriously too rich, too successful for shareholders good."
"So much for being a listed company that is really more a pte ltd."
Are those statements are defamatory ? Please enlighten. If those really are. Forumers have to avoid those statements or you'll be charged with defamation.

“ABC has done it again” this is likely to be based on something that has indeed happened, if it is then it’s ok.

"I think its disclosure policy is questionable" – this is a fair comment so long as the writer can justify why he feels this way

"XYZ is too proud to listen to suggestions." – this is also a fair comment and will hardly harm its reputation

"XYZ is seriously too rich, too successful for shareholders good." – this is not even defamatory in nature unless XYZ is really not that rich and has a poor man image.

"So much for being a listed company that is really more a pte ltd." A fair comment that does not harm its reputation either

The only way of which anyone will be able to sue you over this will be if you are in Thailand with its Lese Majeste law and if you insult the Royal family. Else defamation still protects the right to free speech and opinion.

Imagine how busy the court will be if they allow people to sue others over insults….

In such a case, it is more likely that the judge will just criticize the lawyer for wasting time and money and ask the plaintiff to pay all the costs

This is the definition of the defense of fair comment:

"Fair Comment

Here, the defendant has to show a number of things:

The contentious statements are in the nature of a comment, i.e. an expression of opinion, and not of fact.
The comment is based on true facts. In short, the comment is “a statement of opinion on facts” (Gatley, 1981).
The comment is fair – it must be a honestly-held opinion of a reasonable person, albeit giving some allowance for prejudices and exaggeration.
The comment concerns itself with matters of public interest.
"