Seems like a legal threat to Horvath if she speaks up about this again.
Harassment allegations aside, the fact that the wife of the founder had the access/freedom she did was a bit of a WTF for me. I can understand that perhaps GH decided that was the termination-triggering offense, not the allegations.
I don't see how that's less dramatic though, especially since the meaning of that statement is pretty obvious.
Whether you interpret it as normal, like you do, or inappropriate and/or sad, like I would, is a different matter.
I would have a lot of trouble finding any other interpretation than him attempting to stop certain people from saying certain things and thus suppressing the discussion, whether successfully or not.
a) There is zero legal merit. As an outside observer, I don't know one way or another. I presume you don't either. (Remember the law does not always track your intuition.)
b) Even if there is some theoretical legal merit, the independent investigation results (if what we're told is the entirety of the conclusions) may make it an uphill battle to pursue the claim.
c) There is actual legal merit but the potential plaintiff is choosing not to pursue the matter.
d) There is actual legit merit and the attorneys are in settlement talks right now.
e) There is actual legal merit and a lawsuit will be filed before the statute of limitations expire.
Who knows?
But in American courts, if I call you a dog-fornicator, you generally have to prove to the court you aren't a dog-fornicator to get damages. (Plus a bunch of other stuff, like actual damages, unless it's per-se defamation, except if . . . . There's a lot that could be added to this, hence my "generally.")
To get damages? That's another issue. In American courts, the accused would not have to prove to the court that they aren't a dog fornicator. The prosecution has to prove you the accused is guilty.
edit: re. "unequivocally confirm this and we are prepared to fight any further false claims"