Olam - when companies sue There is certain machismo to calling in one's lawyers. Even more to slapping down a writ. Olam, one of Asia's largest agribusinesses, has been irked sufficiently by criticism from Muddy Waters to turn to its local Singapore courts. There it has launched an action against the US-based investment firm and a well-known short seller, alleging slander, libel and malicious falsehood. Shares in the company, which wants aggravated and exemplary damages, rose 5 per cent. But should investors generally feel relieved or worried by this development? Corporations certainly have reputations, even if measuring them is tricky. But the extent to which these should be protected by libel laws is hotly debated. For a start, many companies (especially listed ones) deliberately open themselves to scrutiny. They lack personal feelings, part of the rationale for damages in defamation actions by individuals. And many devote significant resources - in the shape of PR advisers - to countering any disapproval. How legal jurisdictions handle this issue varies widely. In the UK corporates can sue for libel in respect of their trading reputations and lost business, but claims based on a share price fall are viewed as misconceived. In Australia, by contrast, corporate libel claimants are largely limited to very small companies and not-for-profits. There may also be more pragmatic issues. Establishing specific damage tends to be difficult. Court battles, meanwhile, carry big PR risks. Remember "McLibel"? McDonald's, the US fast-food chain, won a long libel battle in the English courts against two environmental campaigners, but lost horribly in terms of public opinion. Of course, inaccurate criticism levied solely to make a financial gain would always be wrong. But the real issue, then, would be market manipulation.