Originally posted by wine+art:
Random House apologized, accepted all allegations were untrue, and paid Broadbent money.
What have I misread?
You originally wrote that Broadbent was "cleared of any wrongdoing" which is decidedly not the case. This never went to trial and that wasn't necessarily going to be determined at trial in any event.
I haven't read the settlement agreement or the lawsuit filings. However, this article
provides some details. Broadbent "claimed in his suit that the book falsely depicts him as complicit in a crime." I read the book and didn't see it doing so. It is those allegations that Random has apologized for and said were untrue.
As I see this, Broadbent sued under the generous libel laws saying that Random house said a bunch of libelous things. Random house viewed a settlement as economically prudent. It was easy for them to disavow things that weren't in the book but only in Broadbent's charges.