Dotcom: "In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that was setup for my children."
Mega: "Mega said that it has 13 percent of its shareholdings subject to two freezing orders. A 6 percent holding controlled by Dotcom's estranged wife was frozen in November 2014 by the New Zealand High Court on application by five Hollywood film studios."
How can this be called a "denial" I don't understand.
Secondly, Dotcom's main claim was the hostile takeover, his family shares were just a part of that. It could be true that they were frozen but un-true about the rest of his claims.
So yes, it's a denial of his full claims, but maybe (or maybe not) a confirmation of one part of his claims that you pulled out.
That said it's obviously a bunch of PR speak that means nothing. For example this line:
> "More than 75 percent of shareholders have supported recent equity issues, so there has not been any 'hostile takeover',
You could plot a hostile takeover in which the end, winning, result is that you own 75% of the shares, that is the takeover. So having shareholder support when the claim against you is "they took over the company by sneakily getting shareholder control" is irrelevant.
All in all, it's a denial, but not one with any evidence in either direction.
On another side "The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud." (said by Dotcom) is not commented by Mega at all (unsurprisingly). So what did Mega actually deny? I claim, nothing. It's OK if you consider it enough that they call the statement "a denial" but from my subjective point of view, the press and we, the readers, should not even accept such a name if there's nothing in the statement that denies anything Dotcom claimed. I think you actually agree that nothing was effectively denied, as you also say: "it's obviously a bunch of PR speak that means nothing." So yes, Mega can call it a denial, but I don't understand how anybody else can call it so if he/she reads the content of the statement. Specifically, how can the news agency write the title "Mega denies" and be trusted? It's not the same as "Mega responds."