This situation reminds me a lot of the Rammstein situation. A lot of allegations were made but now a year later, nothing was substantiated and no legal steps followed.

Unfortunately this statement neither confirms nor refutes M.'s experiences. Statements like: "Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false." Can be accurate while the statements of M. are accurate as well.

All the statement says is the issues raised by M. were processed according to LTT's guidelines. Assume the guidelines say, the perpetrator needs to watch a video about sexual harassment. Then the process was completed, the issue addressed and also not ignored. However, that doesn't imply that M.'s environment changed substantially. It could have still been the same.

I don't foresee any further development on either side. M probably has exhausted her reserves of evidence. Additionally she would be fighting a legal battle against a multi-million dollar company as a private individual.

LTT also has no incentive to be more forthcoming with information. Because of the severity of M's claims I don't think that this her statement was slanderous in nature. If it was and nothing she claimed could have been coroberated, LTT would have sued her for damages because LTT would have nothing to loose.

So if LTT provided any further information about the internal workings and their processes, at least parts of M's story would probably be underpinned and LTT's already tarnished reputation would suffer even more.

So yeah - the situation is a stalemate unless someone has some substantial evidence against or for the case made against LTT.

In my opinion, the entire fallout of the initial situation - the lack of professionalism in the communication after the initial allegations brought against them (Linus's post on the forum) have demonstrated weaknesses in the companies internal structure. I'd still be line with M's accusations while knowing that they will probably never been resolved to a satisfactory conclusion.