Trying too hard

Most organizations would take a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling against them to be a bad sign. But judging from this press release from Imperial Tobacco, you'd think it had been successful on all counts at the hearing:

Today's Supreme Court of Canada's ruling reassures Imperial Tobacco Canada that it can have a fair trial and bring forward all the relevant information in any legal action undertaken by the B.C. government under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Recovery Act. The company intends to vigorously defend itself in any trial initiated by that province.

Now, maybe it seems like a rather fine legal point. But could anybody read the decision and think that a victory for the government would force the tobacco companies into an unfair trial with key information suppressed?

In fact, it was the tobacco companies who tried to argue that such unfairness was the effect of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. And what's more, the Court didn't even say that the rules under the Act were entirely fair or logical; it merely concluded that they weren't constitutionally invalid as interfering with the court's independence:

54 None of this is to say that legislation, being law, can never unconstitutionally interfere with courts’ adjudicative role. But more is required than an allegation that the content of the legislation required to be applied by that adjudicative role is irrational or unfair, or prescribes rules different from those developed at common law. The legislation must interfere, or be reasonably seen to interfere, with the courts’ adjudicative role, or with the essential conditions of judicial independence.

So even if any one company's goal at the hearing was to reassure itself that the rules would result in an absolutely fair hearing, nothing in the decision suggests that it was any better than "not as unfair or illogical as the appellants submit". Which can hardly be seen as a victory even on that front.

I presume the goal of the bravado is to reassure investors (substantially the same reason why the decision's release was delayed). But I for one would look a lot more favourably on a company willing to ground its public statements in reality. After all, if a company is willing to make statements contrary to facts in the public domain, how could one trust its opinion when there's no objective data for comparison?

It's easy enough to understand the desire to put a brave face on a loss. But there are times when it's perfectly appropriate to admit defeat on an issue - especially when, as pointed out later on in the press release, the question was merely a preliminary one with a full trial to follow. Instead, investors have a lot of reason to be suspicious about what Imperial has to say elsewhere. And that could cause far more panic toward stock values than any court decision.