You have just completed a fraud investigation for the XYZ Cement Company. You found that a production man- ager had been collecting pay for phantom employees. The evidence was clear; the production manager signed the time cards for nonexistent employees and you managed to get a video recording of him doing so. When you wrote your report you indicated that the production manager signed the time cards and that the time cards in question were for nonexistent employees. Your report was simple, direct, and clear. However, the CEO of XYZ was unhappy because your report never stated that a fraud was committed or that the production manager had done anything wrong. The CEO went to the police with the report and they refused to give the case any serious attention; they said that the report was not strong enough to get a conviction. The CEO was very angry and began pressuring you to revise the report to at least indicate that a fraud had been committed. You discussed the issue with a loss management person from your professional liability insur- ance company. The loss management person advised against changing your report; they said that, given the nar- row investigation, any claim of fraud would expose you to a lawsuit. Consequently, you advised the CEO that you would not change your report. When you told him that he be- came angry and indicated that he was not going to pay the remaining balance on his account with you. You told him that you understood his feelings, and you indicated that although you both knew in your hearts the produc- tion manager was guilty, you were not at liberty to change your report. To your surprise, you realized that the CEO's secretary was standing in the open doorway behind you, listen- ing to the whole conversation. An hour later, the CEO sent out a memo to all the staff indicating that you had advised him that the production manager was guilty of fraud. Two days later, you received a call from your professional liability insurance company. You were told that an attorney for the production manager had opened a claim against you for defamation. 

Required 

Analyze this case and make suggestions for how you might have handled the CEO differently. Also, indicate the extent that you think the defamation suit has a chance of succeeding.