Re: Stox threatens Stockwatch with defamation lawsuit
stox.com Inc - Company News
Stox threatens Stockwatch with defamation lawsuit
stox.com Share issued 5,428,791
Jan 28 close $10.00
Fri 28 Jan 2000
Company News
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following letter appears to be a detailed and interesting reply by Patrick Lavin to the comments by 'aces' that appeared on Stockwatch's 'stox.com' forum. Since the sensible forum for Mr. Lavin to deal with forum matters is that forum itself, this letter is also posted to the 'stox.com' forum at the Stockwatch Web site.
Mr. Lavin's letter also raises the matter of privacy protection as it relates to the Internet. He is attacking 'aces' privacy, under the label of defamation: Stockwatch will seek to protect it.
As Internet privacy is of interest to all forum posters, we encourage our readers to consider Mr. Lavin's response to 'aces,' and discuss any related Internet privacy issues on Stockwatch's 'stox.com' discussion forum. Because Stockwatch forum posters do not have to register with Stockwatch, we have no way of knowing -- short of a phone call or letter from you -- who is behind a posting handle. Since 'aces' first post on Jan. 17, stox's stock has risen from $7.50 to today's intraday high of $12.25.
To access the Stockwatch forum entry page use this link:
forums.stockwatch.com
Here is a link which will take you directly to the stox.com conference:
forums.stockwatch.com
January 27, 2000
Attention: Mr. John J. Woods
Canada Stockwatch
PO Box 10371
Pacific Centre
700 W Georgia St.
Vancouver BC V7Y 1J6
Attention: Mr. John J. Woods
Canjex Publishing Limited
P.O. Box 48800
2100-1111 West Georgia Street
Vancouver BC V7X 1K9
Mr. John J. Woods
North Vancouver, B.C.
Dear Sirs/Mesdames: RE: PATRICK LAVIN AND STOX.COM INC
We are solicitors representing Patrick Lavin and stox.com Inc (stox.com).
Mr. Lavin is the Chief Financial Officer of stox.com. As you are well aware, stox.com is a listed company that carries on the business of aggregating and disseminating financial information on the Internet. On January 14, 2000 you published material on Canada-Stockwatch.com that is seriously defamatory of our clients. Publication has continued since that date, and related material was published on January 17, January 20, and January 21, 2000. The original publication and repetition shows a calculated and malicious attempt to damage both the business reputation of stox.com and the reputation of Patrick Lavin, both in his business and personal capacity. Mr. Lavin is shocked by this vicious attack on his personal integrity.
On January 14, 2000 material was posted on your site by a person identified as "aces". The publication starts by referring to the existence of a "relationship" between Mr. Lavin and a third party, Mr. Alex Kuznecov. The following six sentences identify Mr. Kuznecov as an "unsavoury" individual, who engages in many "false trades", and who as a result has been "disciplined" by regulatory authorities. The posting then states:
'Mr. Lavin has had many opportunities to rid himself of this unsavoury individual, but has chosen not to.... How can the chief financial officer of an upstanding company be involved with this kind of individual and maintain the pretence of being all "above board"?'
It is defamatory to allege that a person keeps company with an unsavoury or dishonest individual, if the insinuation is that he, by reason of that association or otherwise, is also an unsavoury person or engaged in illicit conduct. In this case you have published material that in explicit language makes the inference that Mr. Lavin is tainted by the relationship. The implication is that Patrick Lavin is not "above board". In context, the term "above board" clearly refers to matters of probity, honesty and integrity in his professional handling of matters in the financial business. In the context of explicit references to "false trades", the innuendos are of the most serious kind and calculated to cause serious injury to stox.com Inc. and Mr. Lavin whose business and occupation is in the financial industry.
The fact that you insinuate the libel by way of an interrogative statement is no defence. "It is immaterial whether the imputation is conveyed ... by words used in a declarative or interrogative form": Gatley On Libel, Eighth Edition, paragraph #103. The tendency and effect of the language is the test. The introductory words, "How can", signal a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is "a question asked not for information, but to produce effect". The tone and context unmistakably conveys that the words amount to a positive assertion of bad character and misconduct.
The use of the word "pretence" in this context confirms that the question format is a cover for malicious insinuation. The word "pretence" means a false or hypocritical profession; a pretext or a cloak. It is synonymous with "false pretence". One of the malicious imputations of the text is that Mr. Lavin is in fact maintaining a pretence. The libel portrays our client as a dishonest and false man who pretends to be honest. The wording is sardonic mocking, and vitriolic. The disingenuous phrasing, attempting to conceal the libel in the form of a question, merely underlines the malice of the parties who participated in this publication.
Subsequent postings published by you repeat the libels and aggravate damages. Particulars include:
aces date: 2000-01-17 10:51:57
aces date: 2000-01-20 09:38:52
aces date: 2000-01-20 14:57:19
joetrevor date: 2000-01-21 12:25:43
These related publications refer to stox.com as a "bogus enterprise", and repeat the insinuation that Mr. Kuznecov, whom you have characterized as a man engaged in illicit and unethical conduct, is involved with the business of our clients. Taken in context with the publication of January 14, 2000 all of these publications are defamatory.
The third party referred to, Mr. Kuznecov, is neither a director, officer or in any other way involved in the management of stox.com. It is false to allege that Mr. Kuznecov is in some way associated with stox.com. Inc. There is no factual foundation whatsoever to the statement that Mr. Lavin, either in his personal capacity or as Chief Financial Officer of stox.com Inc. or in any other connection, is "involved" with Mr. Kuznecov either socially or in business dealings. The entire posting is based on a factual allegation of a continuing relationship that is not accurate. Mr. Lavin did have limited dealings with Mr. Kuznecov in the past in the period 1997-1998, and prior to that with Mr. Kuznecov in his capacity as a stockbroker. Nothing in that previous relationship was improper. Mr. Lavin had no involvement whatsoever in the Caprice-Greystoke matter, referred to in your posting dated January 20, 2000.
The sting of the libel lies in the insinuations that Patrick Lavin is by reason of a continuing relationship with Mr. Kuznecov not "above board", and that he is maintaining a "pretence" of honesty and integrity. These imputations are also seriously defamatory of stox.com Inc. They are all false and made with actual malice.
Your conduct from this moment onwards in responding to our demands to mitigate the damages caused by the publication will be taken into account in any assessment of damages by a court of law. We demand that you immediately respond as follows:
1. cease and desist from any further publication of material defamatory of Mr. Lavin or stox.com including any repetition or re-publication of the libels already published or similar libels;
2. delete the libellous postings from sites operated by Stockwatch;
3. provide us with the identities, names and addresses of the creators of the libelous postings, in particular the person identified as "aces";
and
4. provide us with the text of an appropriate, full and unqualified retraction and apology, for our review and approval, to be published on your site and at other locations to be decided by us. Be warned that anything less than a full and unqualified apology will merely aggravate damages. Time is critical in taking steps to mitigate the damages of your publication. We demand that you provide us with a draft apology by 4:00 p.m. Monday, January 31, 2000. We require that publication cease immediately.
We also place you on notice that any further publication from this date will be taken as evidence that you are engaged in a common enterprise with persons whose identities are at present unknown to us to wilfully cause grave damage to our clients.
Due to the seriousness of this situation, we have taken care to lay out in detail the basis of our clients' complaint. We have made you fully aware of the cause of the damage, and of the means available to you to mitigate damages.
We advise that our clients reserve their right to commence action for recovery of substantial damages for defamation, both against Stockwatch and each of Stockwatch's employees, editors and contractors who have in any way participated in the dissemination of these malicious libels. Your publication has been disseminated to a very large audience, and is calculated to cause enormous damage. Our immediate objective is to prevent further damages from your conduct, and to do whatever is possible to mitigate the injury and loss incurred to date. It is in your interest to prevent further damages.
We await your response.
Yours truly,
ALEXANDER, HOLBURN, BEAUDIN & LANG
Per: "signed"
David Gooderham
DG/km
***************************************************************************
This bulletin is sponsored and has been sent to you for no charge.
THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY SECURITY!
To remove yourself from this mailing list, access this URL: stockwatch.com
For more information about this service please contact the advertising department at Stockwatch 800.268.NEWS or 604.687.1500
************************************************************************** |
