In an interesting sidebar to Section 16 practice, well-known plaintiffs’ attorneys David Lopez and Miriam Tauber just lost a libel action they brought on their own behalf against Mark Mona, the son of an insider who has been ordered to pay $484,614 in short-swing profits to Microbot Medical Co. As discussed in this earlier blog, Lopez and Tauber represented Microbot in the 16(b) action.
While an appeal in the 16(b) action was pending, Mark Mona sent a message to Microbot on LinkedIn asking it to settle the case against his father. In that message, Mona said that Section 16(b) is an unjust statute and continued with this language:
“I am reaching out to you because in my opinion, the interests of Microbot and its executives are not equitably aligned with the interests of the attorneys who instigated this lawsuit. Their modus operandi is to exploit this 16(b) provision whenever they have an opportunity, and thus have little to no interest in the fate of Microbot down the road.”
Lopez and Tauber alleged that Mona’s message constituted libel per se. The judge did a deep dive into the nuances of libel law, concluded that the alleged defamatory statements were a mixture of fact and opinion, and on balance concluded that the attorneys had not established that they were libeled.
There is no Section 16(b) law in the decision, but the case illustrates that the plaintiffs’ bar can take offense at a suggestion that they are in the business only for their own good.
– Alan Dye, Section16.net, July 6, 2023
