This "Marchi is a weak case" shit is copeposting.Meh, I'll say it boils down to 4 options.
Option 1: The appeals agree with Chupp on all counts, and Vic has to pay the half million.
Option 2: The appeals agree with Chupp on all counts, but rule that he can't levy additional fees for appealing and he pays the quarter million.
Option 3: The appeals overturn some causes of action, Vic will pay less than the quarter million accordingly, and the case goes ahead.
Option 4: The appeals overturn all causes of action, and the case goes ahead.
I would put money on option 3 just because of the Slatosch texts alone, but Marchi's inclusion always being weak, they will more than likely find Vic a public figure meaning defamation is most likely out, qand the civil conspiracy will be hard to show even if it is true.
Marchi made a statement about what Vic did to herself, a statement of sexual assault which is defamation per se (unless I'm misaken). Furthermore, even if Vic is considered a public figure, there is a video of her initiating a pretend makeout session with him in front of fans - AFTER the date he supposedly assaulted her and she knew of so many others. If that's not prima facie evidence of her not believing her own words, I don't know what would be.
Khan v. Van Der Linden involved a rather more specific allegation that the plaintiff specifically had stated he had funded a terrorist organization. That either happened or it didn't. This would clearly apply to Monica's allegations, which Vic flatly denies, and makes the trial court decision frankly bizarre.
The appeals court could find the plaintiff and Marchi simply characterized the same events differently, which at least in theory could be done without malice or negligently. I think there's an actual factual dispute but the appeals court might not.
It's the latter, although malice has also been imputed when relying on sources that were clearly unreliable. It's not always possible to determine whether this is because they inferred the defendant could not have done this without the requisite state of mind or whether the recklessness itself could constitute malice (this would apply more to Toye than the defendants claiming personal experience).