1. Defendant TLC is present in this dispute as a result of its acquisition of MSI a year later, in October, 1997.

2. Silverstein incorrectly asserts that MSI and TLC are public figures and therefore must prove that he published the statements at issue with malice. Corporations are not inherently public figures and may be defamed "if the corporation is one for profit, and the matter tends to prejudice it in the conduct of its business or to deter others from dealing with it." Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 561(a) (1977). See also Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583, 589 (1st Cir. 1980) ("we cannot see how corporations as a class can be said to be 'public figures' for First Amendment purposes."). A corporation attains public figure status only if it has thrust itself into the vortex of an existing public controversy related to the defamatory statement at issue. See Bruno & Stillman, 633 F.2d at 591; Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 508 F. Supp. 1249, 1272 (D. Mass. 1981). Silverstein can point to no evidence showing that MSI and TLC in any way thrust themselves into the vortex of a public controvesy that preceded the publication of his disparaging remarks about MSI and TLC. See Bruno & Stillman, 633 F.2d at 591 ("Those charged with defamation cannot, by their own conduct, create their own defense by making the claimant a public figure.") (quotations omitted); Bose Corp., 508 F. Supp. at 1273 (same).

3. MSI and TLC have submitted evidence to support the conclusion that because Silverstein knew the real reason he was fired (unauthorized leave of absence) and also knew of MSI's extensive efforts to accommodate him, he published these statements with knowledge that they were false. Thus, even if the Court were to determine that Counterclaim-Plaintiffs are public figures, there is enough evidence before the Court to create a dispute of fact as to whether Silverstein published the statements with malice. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964).