Plaintiff Victor Restis was an entrepreneur for the shipping industry in Greece. His company, Enterprises Shipping and Trading s.a. ("EST"), was responsible for a fleet with a large commercial value. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a not-for-profit corporation named Uani, directed a campaign against the plaintiff which included defamatory publications, or a "name-and-shame campaign." Uani identifies as a corporation that "seeks to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition of obtaining nuclear weapons" and "engages in private sanction campaigns and legislative initiatives focused on ending corporate support of the Iranian regime." The plaintiff argues that the defendant's campaign falsely accused the plaintiff company of engaging in illicit business dealings with Iranian oil and shipping entities. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant tortuously interfered with the plaintiff's business relationships. How do you think the court ruled? Is the plaintiff required to show that the defendant acted solely out of malice? 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Restis v. Am. Coalition against Nuclear Iran, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139402 (s.d.n.y. 2014).