very interesting reading...

one point though leaves me a bit disconcerted...

if IAMs had an economic loss from sensationalist press surely would have pressed charges against it (P&C and other large corporation in the same sector are well known for defending their sources of income, no matter how small they are, very fiercely)...

BUT pressing charges means that a further thorough investigation (including financial scrutiny of the holding/subsidiaries and participation/stake-share holdings) would have been necessary and if some connection would have been found that the claim against the sensationalist press would have been dismissed and IAMS (or P&C) would have been found at least in concurrence (if not totally responsible)...

unfortunately i see a lot of these cases when analysing holdings... and this precise situation (although conceding the benefit of the doubt to P&C) seems to come under this case...
in my opinion a further investigation in the accounting and the ownership books (which are publicly available, by law, for plc enterprises) should shed more light on the facts...

best
d