Niemann goes to court - anybody out there with actual knowledge?

I'm a Swedish lawyer with some 30 years of litigation experience. I don't know much about American law but here's how it seems to me.

1. Norway and Sweden have no agreements on enforcement. In plain English, Magnus can be sentenced to pay a zillion by the Supreme court. All he then needs to do is to make sure he has no assets in America. Unfair? The US legal system would to the same if Carlsen came to the US with the same court decision against Niemann from Norway. It's called reciprocity. An American lawyer also said that Carlsen could - beforehand - donate any price money in the US to (e g) a foundation, let's say The Fight Cheating in Chess Foundation If Niemann went for it. True? Bottom line, if Niemann wins, he would have to take the case to Norway and win it there (in the Norwegian courts). And also pay Magnus lawyers if he loses (I think but here's a good question to a Norwegian lawyer on Chess.com!). Good luck with that, I would say, based on what I know about the Norwegian legal system (which happily - to me - is very similar to the Swedish).

2. Seems to me that Carlsen has done two things in particular. He has implied (with the Mourinho "I can't speak..." tweet) that Niemann has cheated OTB. Then his statement that Hans had cheated "more and more recently" and that he had suspicions on Hans' behaviour during the game. I have read and heard that now Niemann needs to prove that the statements were "false" and also, assuming that Niemann is deemed a "public person," some "malice" (basically bad intentions in Swedish law) and maybe - even! - that Magnus made the statements without caring if they were true or not (wrecklessly).

3. The mystery for me is: Magnus never said Hans cheated in the OTB game, but obviously (without the exact words) that he suspected it. Then that "he believed" Hans had cheated "more and more recently" than he admitted to (to mee, it's obvious that Chess.com leaked their knowledge to MC before MC wrote it, but I cannot prove it).
So, can suspicions be false in a legal sense? Can my or Magnus' "understanding" of a situation be false? And if I'm backed up by Chess.com's experts on "more and more recently" (100 games+ a year later), how do you make slander of that?

If there are any lawyers, law students or other people with "actual knowledge"* i would appreciate (love) your input.

* With actual knowledge I don't wish to disrespect anyone, I mean people with legal insight, insight in what is actually going on in the court or any knowledge about the facts. Personal opinions I have seen in hundreds and they don't weigh much in courts :-)

Here's a fairly fresh article from a professor, put out by Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-10-23/hans-niemann-s-100-million-chess-lawsuit-will-be-tough-to-win

Interesting

This interview with a law professor about the case is pretty good.

Thanks, heard that one, essentially the same as Bloomberg. To sum up, the only one implying he’s cheated OTB is Magnus. And if he wins, probably no money. Against the other he seems to lack a pot to pee in. Fame costs :-)

The defamation, libel, and slander claims are very hard to prove. He has a much better chance with the tortious interference claim. T

A smart lawyer would advise a quick settlement. You can easily spend half a million dollars winning such cases.

I suspect the various lawyers who have commented on this are right that the case is a poor one.

I also suspect Neimann knows that and that winning it isn't really the point.  This is PR -- hence the release of the brief.  He wants to change the public view in order to present himself as the wronged party and not the wronger.  He wants to bring attention to the opportunities he's missed as a result of all this (the dropped Keymer match, for instance).  He probably also wants to discourage others from opining that he cheated or disinviting him from matches or tournaments.

He probably also thinks he has some leverage, at least with chess.com.  Chess.com won't want this to go to trial because it could easily require them to make their cheat-detection procedures public. So he may think they'll accept a settlement, perhaps involving reinstatement, some sort of statement, a bit of money, in exchange for not having to litigate.

My own feelings on what should happen (legally, and ethically, which are a bit different) are rather mixed.  But these are some guesses of what might happen.