The Swiss bank which sued Wikileaks.org and managed to deny DNS access to the site has asked the court to drop its lawsuit. Bank Julius Baer didn't give a reason for renouncing the suit and reserved the right to refile it later, but that is hardly probable.

"We voluntarily backed out at this point but retained the right to pursue it further if the bank decides they want to do that," said Jenna Agins, spokeswoman at the public relations firm that represents Julius Baer to San Francisco Chronicle.

"Although the Bank's notice of dismissal warns of the possibility that the Bank may bring the same lawsuit in some different court, we are confident that judges in such future cases will have learned the lesson taught by the proceedings in federal court in San Francisco," said Paul Alan Levy attorney for Public Citizen Litigation Group.

The Julius Baer bank in Switzerland, a favorite bank for the mega-wealthy across the world, filed a complaint early last month against the Wikileaks site and its US-based host Dynadot for posting several hundred of the bank’s documents.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, last Friday, reversed his February 15 injunction forcing Dynadot to deny DNS access to the anonymous whistleblower website. Apart from citing First Amendment concerns, he pointed out that federal courts are unable to take cases between two foreign nationals, as the apparent owner of Wikileaks is an Australian man now living in Kenya, and the bank is Swiss.

The bank which sued and managed to shut down DNS access to the anonymous whistleblower website is now in some serious PR problems. Some the bank's documents, posted by a former bank employee, allegedly reveal that Julius Baer was involved in offshore money laundering and tax evasion in the Cayman Islands for customers in several countries, including the U.S. The documents leaked on the embattled site contain numerous references to the bank's former vice president in the Caymans, Rudolf Elmer, but it's unknown whether he is the whistleblower.

Now, instead of the information disappearing, as the bank would have wanted, it has actually been read by probably 100 times more people than if they would have ignored the posting. In fact, I never have heard of Wikileaks before this scandal, and odds are that neither did you. This situation is known as the "Streisand effect," after Barbra Streisand's 2003 lawsuit seeking to remove satellite photos of her house in Malibu, California.

Furthermore, Julius Baer stocks have dropped 20 percent since January. This probably means that investors have not received well the scandal.

Wikileaks has been under fire since its inception in December 2006, as confidential documents belonging to some institutions have been posted on the site. Critics also have questioned the motives of the site’s founders. However, many others have praised the site for supporting the free dissemination of information.