panther....long time no see. I don't know this stock or the case but ran across the ruling on the DD board. Maybe you can help.
"The court ruling means that the allegations in the post were not only incorrect, but libelous and defamatory."
I'm assuming that you're referring to the ruling requiring compliance on the part of the Non-Party.
1. It says that the other posts are not defamatory. It may be logical to conclude from that that the post in question IS defamatory but that legal issue actually remains to be decided, doesn't it? (One would think that that was the basis for the decision, but.....)
2. I haven't seen the original motion that the Court has ruled on, but the language of the ruling has a second wrinkle in it. It seems to be requiring the provision of the post itself, perhaps to formalize the record, and doesn't specifically call for the ID info of the poster.
Have you seen the motion or do you know where I might find it? It would clear these things up for me.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
