If you want more on the current state of civil conspiracy pleading, the two leading cases are
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007);
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
You might ask "well how would you even file such a case if you can't even get discovery into it?" That would be a reasonable question and probably worth discussion later, and I'd assume Vic's lawyers have some plan in this regard, which they aren't going to talk about publicly.
But my brief offhand idea is that you already have a solid defamation cause of action assuming these claims are false, and as such, broad latitude for discovery into the background of the already known defamatory statements that definitely meet the threshold pleading requirements.
So it's very likely that in discovery related to the defamation and to any due diligence or actual malice involved, any actual conspiracy-related material would tend to come out. So if that's there, they're going to find it. If they do get the evidence to back up such a cause of action, they can then file an amended complaint re-alleging the defamation claims and throwing in the conspiracy.
This is assuming they don't get together enough stuff to plead conspiracy at the outset. Still, I wouldn't put much stock in that angle of attack. Conspiracy is a sexy cause of action that people like sperging about but it is complicated, expensive and often just not worth bothering with.
The big plus is if you can get over the hurdles and successfully plead it, you get everyone (including the guys with the deep deep pockets) on the hook for the full damages even if it's some schmuck conspirator with no money who actually did the shittiest things that got you the judgment.
But you can get this with a joint and several liability theory without conspiracy.
