Worst PR decision that could be made would be for IMSC to formally respond to this incident. Once they set a precedent for responding to one allegation thrown their way, they will HAVE to respond to EVERY allegation from that point forward.
If they don't respond to a subsequent allegation after having responded to a first, they will have defacto provided more credibility for any subsequent allegations. For example, imagine these headlines: "Concern is heightened because IMSC has not responded to these new allegations even though they have a track record of commenting on all previous allegations that have implied wrongdoing."
It takes discipline but from a PR standpoint, responding to allegations like this are suicidal. Not to mention, the more that this story is kept alive by denials and counter-denials, the longer bad publicity stays in the headlines. Never mind that it ties up PR and investor relations people unnecessarily. It's a bad play to make any statement.
For those who will ask, "So you just want to let some schmuck throw rocks and not respond?" My answer is "YES". The story will die a quick and natural death if left alone. Don't provide a counter story to keep it alive. This is an elementary PR 101 case study. To me, how they handle this will be a reflection of the quality of IMSC management.
Pat
