$100 million defamation suit filed against bloomberg l.p., reporter matt robinson and editor jesse...

8/17/2019 $100 Million Defamation Suit Filed against Bloomberg L.P., Reporter Matt Robinson and Editor Jesse Westbrook

1/42

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-11650

__________________________________

Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson

and

Lemelson Capital Management, LLC

Plaintiffs

v.

Bloomberg LP,

Matthew Robinson, as an individual andas an agent of Bloomberg LP,

and Jesse Westbrook, as an individual

and as an agent of Bloomberg LP

__________________________________

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs Reverend Father Emmanuel Lemelson (“Fr. Lemelson”) and Lemelson Capital

Management LLC, by and through his undersigned attorney, sues Defendants Bloomberg LP,

Mathew Robinson, and Jesse Westbrook, (collectively, “Defendants”), and respectfully makes the

following allegations.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

Fr. Lemelson is a world-renowned priest, religious leader, financial expert, philanthropist,

humanitarian, and entrepreneur. Fr. Lemelson has been recognized to be a “renaissance man” due


2/42

2

to his numerous accomplishments. Fr. Lemelson is currently a priest in the Eastern Orthodox

Church and, as part of his lay-vocation1 is Chief Investment Officer of Lemelson Capital

Management LLC, the general partner to the Amvona Fund, LP. The Amvona Fund is an

alternative investment fund, that invests in a variety of assets, using complex portfolio construction

and risk management techniques. Lemelson Capital Management LLC has achieved a high rate of

return for its investors. His activities led the Amvona Fund to be ranked three times during 2013–

14 among the world's top performing hedge funds, and by mid-2015 the company reported a net

return since its launch of 150 percent. Fr. Lemelson’s investment research and analysis has been

cited in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today New York Post , Fox Business Network and The

Street.

In December 2012, Lemelson founded The Lantern Foundation, a non-profit foundation focused

on supporting religious, charitable and educational causes with a special focus on those associated

with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Since its inception, he has served as its president.

In November 2014, Lemelson was a member of the Orthodox Church's delegation for a two-day

meeting between Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and Pope Francis in Istanbul.

1 In the Eastern Orthodox church, it is customary for priests to have families and to maintain lay vocations outside oftheir priestly responsibilities to support their families.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Todayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Todayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Posthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Posthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Business_Networkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbulhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbulhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Business_Networkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Business_Networkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Posthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Todayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal


3/42

3

Many prominent investors, including Vulcan Ventures (founded by Paul Allen of Microsoft) and

Vanderbilt University amongst others, have expressed interest in investing in the funds managed

by the Plaintiffs. Fr. Lemelson has been interviewed by many international media outlets, such as

Fox News, due to his track record of investing and humanitarian views. Fr. Lemelson has been a

strong proponent of a Christian philosophy of investment. At the heart of Fr. Lemelson’s

philosophy is an in-depth and rigorous analysis of the ethics of human behavior, in business and

in his ministry. By any measure, Fr. Lemelson’s ministry and businesses have been successful. He

has attracted a great deal of interest and scrutiny due his unique qualifications and unprecedented

success.

Over his years in business, Fr. Lemelson has attracted positive attention for his track record of

honest, unbiased opinions as an analyst. As a priest, Fr. Lemelson has played an integral role in

rebuilding faith communities that had been suffering...

The story of Fr. Lemelson’s professional career in business and his ministry has been an

unmitigated success. But all of this changed when the Defendants published a false and defamatory

article which said that Fr. Lemelson was being investigated by the SEC for illegal activities.

For anyone in the financial sector, the slightest suggestion of dishonest and illegal activities can

cause potential investors and partners to go in another direction. But for Fr. Lemelson, as a priest,


4/42

4

the harm has multiplied. Since Bloomberg published its defamatory article, promoted it through

its media outlets, and disseminated it to thousands of people through social media, including

twitter, Fr. Lemelson’s steady stream of new investors has completely stopped and within his

Church, he has become a pariah.

Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church have removed Fr. Lemelson from assignments. Religious

colleagues, who formerly had close personal and professional relationships with Fr. Lemelson,

have ostracized him and his family. As of today, Fr. Lemelson has never been the target of any

regulatory investigation by the SEC or any other regulatory body. Despite this, the taint of these

defamatory and false statements is still causing great harm to Fr. Lemelson in both of his vocations.

The Defendants know better. As professional journalists, they are under an ethical obligation to

confirm their stories for accuracy and review their sources. The Defendants were told by Fr.

Lemelson that he was not the target of any investigation. The Defendants were asked by Fr.

Lemelson to retract their statements. Fr. Lemelson and his attorney have both confirmed that he

was not the target of any investigation by the SEC when the story was written. The Defendants

never gave Fr. Lemelson a chance to refute their false statements. Instead, the Defendants have

continued to hold fast to their false and malicious statements.


5/42

5

What makes matters worse is that the Defendants have mocked Fr. Lemelson’s faith. There is clear

innuendo from the Defendants’ television interviews and statements that Fr. Lemelson’s religious

faith should be held up to mockery, ridicule, and contempt. The Defendants have falsely published

that Fr. Lemelson has claimed to have supernatural, clairvoyant powers. Matthew Robinson, in an

interview on Bloomberg TV about the article, was chuckling about Fr. Lemelson’s faith.

Before and after the publication of this article, Defendants have shown little interest in reporting

the truth. There is no basis to the continued assertions by the Defendants that Fr. Lemelson has

been the target of an investigation by the Security and Exchange Commission. The Defendants

were told by Fr. Emmanuel that he was not the target of any investigation by the Securities and

Exchange Commission. Fr. Lemelson and his counsel have confirmed the fact that neither he nor

Lemelson Capital Management is the target of any investigation.

It is important that members of the media don’t publish lies about the subjects of their stories. It is

clear that the Defendants had little or no regard to the substantial consequences that their false

statements have on Fr. Lemelson’s family, emotional state, his parishioners, and his ability to earn

a living. The impact of the Defendants’ false story is serious and real. Business colleagues, who

have had excellent relationships with Fr. Lemelson have walked away from him.

After the article in Bloomberg was published and disseminated, Fr. Lemelson has been shunned

by the Greek Orthodox Church and not allowed to serve in its ministries. Potentially lucrative


6/42

6

business with major investors have been lost. As a result of the Defendants’ defamatory article,

and its dissemination, Fr. Lemelson’s reputation has been permanently tainted.

The Plaintiffs can definitely prove that the Defendants’ false statements in the article at issue has

had the effect of so severely discrediting him that his career and his ministry has been severely

damaged.

Defendants’ false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to Fr. Lemelson’s

personal and professional reputation and career. As a result of Defendants’ defamation, Fr.

Lemelson has been publicly humiliated, lost business contracts, lost prospective investors, been

removed from parish assignments, and received a slew of criticism relating to Defendants’ false

accusations and statements. Defendants’ wrongful acts, which have been repeated, have left Fr.

Lemelson with no alternative but to file this lawsuit.

PARTIES

1. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson (“Fr. Lemelson”), the Plaintiff, is the founder and president of the Lantern

Foundation and also the Chief Investment Officer of Lemelson Capital Management, LLC. Fr.

Lemelson is an ordained priest in the Orthodox Church. Fr. Lemelson’s residence is located at 4

Wyndemere Dr. Southborough, MA 01772.


7/42

7

2. Lemelson Capital Management, LLC (“Lemelson Capital Management”), the Plaintiff, is a limited

liability company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which

manages investment funds. Lemelson Capital Management’s headquarters is 225 Cedar Hill Street

– Suite 200 Marlborough, MA 01752.

3. The Defendant, Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg”), is a privately held financial software, data, and

media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. Bloomberg L.P. provides

financial software tools such as an analytics and equity trading platform, data services, and news

to financial companies and organizations through the Bloomberg Terminal (via its Bloomberg

Professional Service), its core revenue-generating product. Bloomberg L.P. also includes a wire

service (Bloomberg News), a global television network (Bloomberg Television), digital websites,

radio stations , subscription-only newsletters, and three magazines: Bloomberg

Businessweek, Bloomberg Markets, and Bloomberg Pursuit.

4.

The Defendant, Matthew Robinson, is employed by Bloomberg L.P. as a writer and is the author

of the defamatory article which gives rise to this action.

5. The Defendant, Jesse Westbrook, is employed by Bloomberg L.P. as an editor and approved of

the defamatory article which gives rise to this action.

6. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that at

all times mentioned in this complaint, the individual defendants, Matthew Robinson and Jesse

Westbrook, were the agents and employees of their co-defendant, Bloomberg and in doing the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_Manhattanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Cityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenuehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_servicehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_servicehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Newshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Televisionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websitehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Businessweekhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Businessweekhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Marketshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Marketshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Businessweekhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Businessweekhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websitehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Televisionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Newshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_servicehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_servicehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenuehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Cityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_Manhattan


8/42

8

things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and scope of that agency and

employment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. The First District Court of the United States in Massachusetts has jurisdiction over this action.

FACTS

8. As a graduate student in 1999, Fr. Lemelson founded the internet photography site Amvona.

9. In 2005, Alexa ranked Amvona among the ten (10) most visited photography related sites on the

world wide web.

10. Since July 2011, Fr. Lemelson has served as an ordained priest in multiple jurisdictions

including presently for the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America.

11. Since July 2011, Fr. Lemelson has served as a priest in a variety of parishes and jurisdictions

throughout New England and Europe.

12. At the request of the Greek Metropolitan of Boston, Fr. Lemelson served as a priest with various

assignments in the metropolis of Boston, including a term at the St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox

Church in Roslindale, Massachusetts which started in 2012.


9/42

9

13. From May 2015 until October 2015, Fr. Lemelson served at the St. George Greek Orthodox

Church in Keene, New Hampshire as a priest at request of the congregation and the Metropolitan

of Boston.

14. Since November 2015, Fr. Lemelson has served at Holy Trinity Albanian Orthodox Church in

South Boston at the request of the Bishop of the Albanian Diocese

15. Since December 2012, Fr. Lemelson has been a director of the Lantern Foundation, which he

established in December 2012, as a registered 501(c)3 tax exempt private foundation. The mission

of the foundation is to provide financial support to religious and community service organizations,

particularly those related to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

16. Besides serving as a priest, Fr. Lemelson previously had a successful career as an entrepreneur and

currently in the financial sector, as a writer and the Chief Investment Officer of Lemelson Capital

Management, which is the general partner of the Amvona Fund L.P., a Delaware Limited

Partnership, as well as The Amvona Fund, Ltd, a British Virgin Islands Corporation.

17. The Amvona Fund, LP is a hedge fund launched and managed by Lemelson Capital

Management, LLC. The fund is a long-short equity fund that seeks to invest in stocks of


10/42

10

companies operating across diversified sectors and geographies. The fund employs both special-

situations and activist strategies. It benchmarks the performance of its portfolio against the S&P

500 Total Returns Index. The Amvona Fund, LP was formed on September 1, 2012 and is

domiciled in the United States.

18. Fr. Lemelson is the author of “Amvona,” a blog that provides opinion and analysis on issues of

Faith, Investing, Economics and Technology.

19.

On the Amvona site, Fr. Lemelson publishes critical articles on faith, finance, security analysis, and the

economy. All of Fr. Lemelson articles and essays are publicly available.

20. Since July 2012, Lemelson Capital Management, LLC has managed the Amvona Fund, LP a

private investment hedge fund that has been consistently ranked in the top one percent (1%) of its

peer group.

21. In July 2013, October 2013, and April 2014, Lemelson Capital ranked among the top hedge funds

in the world according to Barron’s financial magazine.

http://lemelsoncapital.com/https://www.evestment.com/news-events/industry-news/2014/05/28/barron's-names-lemelson-fund-as-april's-top-hfhttp://seekingalpha.com/news/1431301-sa-author-amvona-ranks-first-among-hedge-funds-againhttp://seekingalpha.com/news/1431301-sa-author-amvona-ranks-first-among-hedge-funds-againhttps://www.evestment.com/news-events/industry-news/2014/05/28/barron's-names-lemelson-fund-as-april's-top-hfhttp://lemelsoncapital.com/


11/42

11

22. In both August and October of 2014 The Amvona Fund was ranked among the top performing

long-biased fund globally according to BarclayHedge as well as ranking at the top on a year to

date basis.

23. Ligand Pharmaceuticals (“Ligand”) is a publicly traded company that holds investments in a

portfolio that specializes in the pharmaceutical industry.

24. Fr. Lemelson, in his position as the Chief Investment Officer of the Amvona Fund, studies

numerous companies so that he can allocate capital on behalf of the fund’s clients.

25. On or about June 16 2014, Fr. Lemelson first published findings in a research report that was

critical of the Ligand’s financial structure, public reporting, and its ability to stay in business as a

going concern.

26. Fr. Lemelson published reports in 2014 which were critical of Ligand’s business model,

management, public comments including the excessive promotion of non-GAAP measures,

excessive stock awards to management as well as the firm’s solvency given the firm’s mounting

debt.

http://www.barclayhedge.com/http://www.barclayhedge.com/


12/42

12

27. On or about January 26, 2016, Fr. Lemelson filed a whistleblower report with the SEC, based upon

his conclusions from studying publicly available documents, about Ligand Pharmaceuticals’

questionable business model, and accounting practices used to enhance the firm’s financial

showings which Lemelson indicated was done to artificially inflate the price of the company’s

stock. Fr. Lemelson expressed his concerns that the financial statements of Ligand were materially

misstated.

28.

On March 18, 2016, Bloomberg.com published an article which stated “Hedge Fund Priest's

Trades Probed by Wall Street Cop.” (See “Exhibit A”).

29. The headline and implication of the article creates the false impression that the Plaintiffs engaged

in dishonest and illegal activities (See “Exhibit A”).

30. The author of the Bloomberg article described in Exhibit A was Defendant Matthew Robinson.

31.

On March 17, 2016, Fr. Lemelson was contacted by Matthew Robinson about the article described

in Exhibit A for an interview.


13/42

13

32. On March 17, 2016, before the defamatory story, described in Exhibit A, was published by

Bloomberg, in a phone call, Fr. Lemelson told Matthew Robinson that he was aware of a United

States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation involving Ligand, a publicly

traded company he had written about, but neither he nor his firm was the target of any

investigation.

33. Robinson responded to Fr. Lemelson, “well, I’m going to write that you are being investigated

anyway.”

34. After the phone call, on March 17, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Fr. Lemelson received the following email

from Mathew Robinson that stated:

“Father Lemelson,

As mentioned, I'm writing a story about a SEC investigation into some of your firm's trades.

Specifically, the agency is looking into whether you bet against certain companies then published

false statements about them in order to drive down their stock prices. One example in the story is

Ligand Pharmaceuticals, which fell more than 7 percent after you published a report in June 2014

saying the company was a going concern and that demand for Promacta was drying up. We

describe the probe being in preliminary stages and that you've not been accused of wrongdoing.

We mention the WSJ story from last fall, where you described your stock picking ability as a gift

from god. We also mentioned your commentary on Skechers and World Wrestling Entertainment


14/42

14

being looked at by the SEC. Please let me know if you'd like to comment and get back to me as

soon as you can. Thanks

Best,

Matt Robinson - Bloomberg News - o 212-617-5409 - c 917-975-3627 -

[email protected] ”

35. On March 18, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Matthew Robinson called the Plaintiffs’ office and left the

following message (proving that he was aware that Amvona was the name of the fund overseen

by Lemelson Capital and not, as he would later write, a pseudonym):

“Hi Father Lemelson, this is Matt Robinson calling from Bloomberg News, just following

up on my call and email from yesterday about the story I’m writing about an investigation

into Amvona and Lemelson Capital about short position in particular short and distort

cases so please give me a call back as soon as you can because we’re going to be publishing

very shortly, my number is 212-617-5409, thank you.”

Call Notification from 5086302100 - MARLBOROUGH MA at Mar 18, 2016 9:00:29 AM

36.

On March 18, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Mathew Robinson sent the following email to Father Lemelson:

Father Lemelson, please get back to me as soon as possible. We're publishing shortly. Thank

you.

From: Matt Robinson (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:) At: Mar 17 2016 17:47:21

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


15/42

15

To: [email protected]

Subject: Bloomberg News: Request for comment

Father Lemelson,

As mentioned, I'm writing a story about a SEC investigation into some of your firm's trades.

Specifically, the agency is looking into whether you bet against certain companies then

published false statements about them in order to drive down their stock prices. One

example in the story is Ligand Pharmaceuticals, which fell more than 7 percent after you

published a report in June 2014 saying the company was a going concern and that demand

for Promacta was drying up. We describe the probe being in preliminary stages and that

you've not been accused of wrongdoing. We mention the WSJ story from last fall, where

you described your stock picking ability as a gift from god. We also mentioned your

commentary on Skechers and World Wrestling Entertainment being looked at by the SEC.

Please let me know if you'd like to comment and get back to me as soon as you can. Thanks

Best,

Matt Robinson - Bloomberg News - o 212-617-5409 - c 917-975-3627 -

[email protected]

37. Upon information and belief, the Defendants published the defamatory story described in Exhibit

A about the Plaintiffs without contacting anyone at the SEC to verify whether or not the Plaintiff

was being investigated.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


16/42

16

38. Upon information and belief, according to the official records of the Securities and Exchange

Commission, the Defendants never made any requests for information about the Plaintiffs and

Ligand before publishing the defamatory story.

39. Investigators from the Securities and Exchange Commission have confirmed to the legal counsel

for Fr. Lemelson, that neither he, personally, nor Lemelson Capital Management were the target

of any SEC investigation or referenced in any order of investigation.

40. In the defamatory article described in Exhibit A, Matthew Robinson stated: “The Securities and

Exchange Commission is examining whether the Reverend Emmanuel Lemelson of Massachusetts

made false statements about companies he was shorting, said the people who asked not to be named

because the probe isn’t public.”

41. The Defendants knew that the statement in paragraph 40 was false.

42.

In the article, Matthew Robinson falsely stated “A priest who sidelines as a hedge-fund manager

is being investigated by U.S. regulators for possible stock manipulation, prompting scrutiny of

trading skills that the cleric has described as a “gift from God,” according to people with

knowledge of the matter.


17/42

17

43. The Defendants knew that the statement in paragraph 42 was false.

44. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff were not the targets and are not referenced in any order

of investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission when the Defendants’ article was

published.

45. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Plaintiffs were not the target of any

investigation or enforcement action by any regulator, including the Securities and Exchange

Commission, for any illegal activities.

.

46. The statement made by the Defendants in the article described in Exhibit A which says, “The SEC

started its investigation after companies complained to the regulator that Lemelson, 39, had made

potentially inaccurate comments about their firms in public forums, the people said,” falsely

implies that the Fr. Lemelson had lied, was not truthful, and was dishonest.

47. The statement in Exhibit A by the Defendants that says, “Investors are free to criticize companies

and their management, but they can’t spread inaccurate information in order to profit,” creates a


18/42

18

false, defamatory implication against Fr. Lemelson that he has spread false information and rumors

to profit.

48. The statement in Exhibit A by the Defendants that says, “A report published on the financial

markets website Seeking Alpha in June 2014 under the pseudonym Amvona said Ligand was in

imminent risk of declaring bankruptcy and that demand for one of its drugs, Promacta, was rapidly

declining. Within minutes, Ligand shares fell more than 7 percent. Since then, Promacta sales

reached an all-time quarterly high and shares of the La Jolla, California-based company have

increased 50 percent to $97.22 through yesterday,” creates a false, defamatory implication against

Fr. Lemelson that he has spread false information and rumors in order to unfairly profit.

49.

This entire statement in paragraph 48 by the Defendants is false and not what the research reports

authored by Fr. Lemelson actually state. The research reports cited by the Defendants say that

Promacta is facing competitive threats, and that the company’s recent debt offering increased the

specter of bankruptcy, not that it was in imminent threat of declaring bankruptcy.

50.

The statement in the article described in Exhibit A which states, “A report published on the

financial markets website Seeking Alpha in June 2014 under the pseudonym Amvona.” falsely

states that Fr. Lemelson hid his real identity from his readers. In fact, Amvona is the name of the

fund which is overseen by Lemelson Capital. Further Lemelson Capital’s profile on SeekingAlpha

clearly states that the name of the fund is the Amvona Fund, and that the account is owned by

Lemelson Capital Management, LLC.


19/42

19

51. The following statement in the article described in Exhibit A by the Defendants that says:

“Historically, the SEC has had difficulty in bringing “short-and-distort” cases, since the regulator

has to prove a misstatement of fact rather than opinion, according to Stephen Crimmins, a former

SEC attorney who’s now with the firm Murphy & McGonigle. Wall Street executives famously

complained that short-sellers were spreading false rumors about their banks during the 2008

financial crisis, but the allegations didn’t result in SEC enforcement actions,” falsely implies that

the Plaintiffs, if they didn’t do something illegal, were unethical. The plain meaning of the

Defendants’ statement is that, if the SEC did not bring any enforcement action, it does not mean

the Plaintiffs are innocent.

a. The statement is defamation by implication – by drawing the parallel – then using

the term “fraudster” it implies that the Plaintiffs are “fraudsters”

b. The Defendants’ statement that says: “The SEC has had more success suing

“pump-and-dump” fraudsters, where scammers promote stocks with fake

information to inflate prices and then sell out” implies that the Plaintiffs are

“scammers.”

52. The defamatory meanings of the Defendants’ words in Exhibit A, examined in light of the

publication as a whole and the medium and social context in which they have been published,

directly imply that the Plaintiffs acted unethically and dishonestly.


20/42

20

53. The Defendants deliberately omitted facts in Exhibit A that they knew would negate the alleged

defamation against the Plaintiffs from their article.

54. The Defendants purposely, in Exhibit A, omitted Fr. Lemelson’s statement to Robinson than he

knew of an investigation involving Ligand to create a false and defamatory meaning to its readers

and viewers.

55. Facts extrinsic to the publication of the article in Exhibit A, which were not disclosed to readers

of its website by the Defendants, created a false defamatory meaning.

56. The statements in Exhibit A by the Defendants contain provably false connotations.

57. The Defendants failed to ascertain the falsity and defamatory character of this article in Exhibit A

before publishing it.

58. After the defamatory article was published, but before the TV segment was published on the article

by Bloomberg, the Plaintiff sent the following email on March 18, 2016 at 3:21 PM to Jesse

Westbrook, Mr. Robinson’s editor.

“Jesse,

I am making a formal request that you retract Bloomberg’s false and erroneous article

published today on our firm and publish a correction / apology.


21/42

21

The article is baseless and defamatory.

Attached for your reference is a press release issued by our firm regarding the matter.

Your prompt response is appreciated.

59.

On Mar 18, 2016 at 3:21 PM, the Plaintiff sent the following message is sent to multiple

Bloomberg editors:

“Dear Bloomberg Editor,

Lemelson Capital is making a formal request that Bloomberg retract it’s false and

erroneous article published today on Lemelson Capital and publish a correction / apology.

The article is baseless and defamatory. Separately, I would welcome the opportunity to

join you on any of Bloomberg’s televised programs to discuss the matter, as well as the

firm’s past and present short positions.

Attached for your reference is a press release issued by our firm regarding the matter.

Your prompt response is appreciated.”

60. This is the list of recipients Fr. Lemelson’s request for a retraction was sent to:

'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';







22/42

22

'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; David Ratner

([email protected]); '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

61. On March 18, 2016, Bloomberg interviewed Matthew Robinson on television several hours after

Fr. Lemelson asked for a retraction of the false and defamatory article. (See “Exhibit B”).

62. Matthew Robinson repeated the substance of the false and defamatory statements on television

program that was distributed online. (See “Exhibit B”).

63. The headline of the televised interview, “Hedge Fund Priest’s Trades Probed By Wall Street Cop,”

repeated a false and defamatory characterization that Fr. Lemelson and Lemelson Capital were

being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. (See “Exhibit B”).

64. The reporter on the television interview said: “Ah, he (“Fr. Lemelson”) fancies himself as I

mentioned as some sort of a clairvoyant. I (smiles and gestures) suppose that’s helpful if that is

the case especially if you are shorting stocks.” (See “Exhibit B”).

65. The statement in paragraph 65 falsely states that Fr. Lemelson feels he is clairvoyant and implies

that he’s not only delusional but unethical. (See “Exhibit B”).

66. In the interview, as described in Exhibit B, Matthew Robinson states: “Right, so the issue that

the SEC is looking at is if you’re putting out false information about companies. This is beyond

like . . . you know . . . I think . . . you know . . . management is not great or that they’re running


23/42

23

the company into the ground cuz that’s very clearly an opinion. But if you are going to say . . .

you know . . . that earnings are going to miss or you think something very specific and bet

against it, you can’t do that, that’s against securities laws.”

67. Matthew Robinson’s statements are false, malicious, and have the intent to injure the Plaintiffs.

68. The statements by Matthew Robinson maliciously and falsely imply that the Fr. Lemelson

published “false information” in an effort to manipulate stock prices.

69. The statements by the Defendants regarding Fr. Lemelson being a “hedge fund priest” and

having “clairvoyant powers” are slurs that are, or have been, used as insinuations to mock Fr.

Lemelson, is priestly vocation, his religious beliefs, and the beliefs of his Church.

70. A caption on the television report, described in Exhibit B, which states: “Hedge Fund Holiness”,

is a slur which has been used as an insinuation to defame and mock Fr. Lemelson, his priestly

vocation, his religious beliefs, and the beliefs of his Church.

71. Matthew Robinson’s statement on the television interview, described in Exhibit B, that, this case

“is like the opposite of the Wolf of Wall Street where he was . . . Belfort was trying to promote

the stock and then sell out before anyone else did. This is . . . you know, you know . . .the inverse

of that where you’re taking a short position, you’re betting against and then trying to push the

stock down”, examined in light of the publication as a whole and the medium and social context


24/42

24

in which they have been published, directly imply that the Plaintiffs acted unethically and

dishonestly and in analogous to a notorious convicted felon and fraudster.

72. On March 18, 2016 at 4:57 PM, the Plaintiff received the following email from Jesse Westbrook:

From: Jesse Westbrook (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 4:57 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re:request that article be retracted

Mr. Lemelson,

Thanks for reaching out to me. We have updated our story to include comments from your press

release. We stand by our reporting and will not be retracting our story.

Jesse Westbrook

Bloomberg News

Washington Bureau

[email protected]

Telephone: 1-202-654-7355

Cell: 1-202-297-1632

Fax: 1-202-624-1360

79. On March 18, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Fr. Lemelson sent the following email to Jessie

Westbrook which stated:

“What is the basis of the reports claims? Since Bloomberg also has now produced a

video/television segment, to be fair you should at least give me an opportunity to respond

on air/television as well – happy to also discuss the firms past and present short positions

(including Ligand).”

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


25/42

25

80. The Defendants have refused to allow the Plaintiffs to respond to its defamatory assertions

on its website, television, radio, or any of its media outlets.

81. Since March 18, 2016 through today, more than twenty- eight other global media outlets

and sites republished the story and repeated the defamatory story published by Bloomberg throughout

the internet and on social media sites. In one example, and in reference to the Bloomberg article, the

global media outlet CNBC referred to the Fr. Emmanuel as “a 2-bit hedge fund manager”. (see

“Exhibit C”)

82. When Lemelson Capital started the fund, it had just one investor and under $3 million

dollars in gross assets. In less than 3 years, the fund operated by the Plaintiff grew to approximately

fifteen investors and 42 million dollars in gross assets, consistently achieving best in industry

performance and garnering interest in approximately 300 prospective investors, including several

high profile persons and entities.

83. Since the defamatory article was published by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have not

received any inquiries from potential investors or additional funds from interested investors and has

received a number of phone calls and emails expressing serious concern regarding the article.

84. Since the defamatory article was published by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have not

received any inquiries from potential investors or additional funds from interested investors.


26/42

26

85. Since Bloomberg published its defamatory article, no potential investors have contacted

the Plaintiffs to invest and the growth of the fund has come to a screeching halt.

86. Since Bloomberg published its defamatory article, several of the firm’s current and

prospect vendors have declined to work with the Plaintiff.

87. Before the Defendants published their defamatory article, Fr. Lemelson was receiving

many offers to serve as a priest in many Orthodox parishes.

88. As a result of the Defendants’ defamatory article and false statements that have been

disseminated, Fr. Lemelson’s bishop has been contacted and Fr. Lemelson has become the target of

unfair scrutiny and negative implications within his faith community.

89. The Statements referenced in this Complaint in Exhibit A and B (hereinafter “Statements”)

assert or imply that the Plaintiffs have committed acts of moral turpitude and may be subject to

enforcement action for violation of laws of the United States.


27/42

27

90. The Statements, individually and taken as a whole in context of the published article by the

Defendants are defamatory because they falsely impute to Plaintiff corruption, fraud and deceit, as

well as the commission of a serious offense, in a manner ruinous to the reputation and esteem of

Plaintiff professionally, locally, nationally, and globally in both his primary and lay vocations.

91. The Statements proximately caused Plaintiff general and special damages in the form of

injury to his reputation throughout the United States and internationally. These damages include, but

are not limited to, Plaintiff’s credibility being compromised, loss of speaking invitations, loss of

teaching and book publishing opportunities, loss of financial clients, loss of opportunities,

compensated and uncompensated, as a priest and as a manager of an investment fund.

92. As a priest and fund manager, Fr. Lemelson has a position of trust with his parishioners

and clients.

93. Defamatory Statements by the Defendants of Fr. Lemelson’s ethics and morality, therefore,

severely injured Plaintiff’s professional reputation and ability to earn a living.

94. By publishing the Statements in hard copy and on the internet, the Defendants knew it

would be republished and read by the general public throughout the United States and elsewhere.


28/42

28

95. The Statements of the Defendants were in fact republished and read by members of the

general public throughout the United States and elsewhere as a direct, natural, probable, and

foreseeable consequence of Defendants’ publication and subsequent republication.

96. The Statements stigmatize Fr. Lemelson as guilty of fraud and deceit and injure his

professional standing.

97. The Statements individually and collectively are false, and were false when made.

98. The Statements are defamatory falsehoods; which Defendants knew or should have known

were false when made.

99. The Defendants made the Statements with actual malice and wrongful and willful intent to

injure the Plaintiffs.

100. The Statements were made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity or with

knowledge of their falsity and with wanton and willful disregard of the reputation and rights of the

Plaintiff.

101. The Statements, as a whole, constitute slurs that are, or have been, used as insinuations or

allegations about Fr. Lemelson and Fr. Lemelson’s religious beliefs.

102. The Statements, as a whole, are derogatory, critical, disrespectful, and insulting to Fr.

Lemelson’s belief, religious vocation as a priest, and his religion.


29/42

29

103. The Defendants treated the Plaintiffs differently and singled him out for less favorable

media coverage because of Fr. Lemelson’s religious beliefs. Upon information and belief, Fr.

Lemelson was the only religious figure that has been written about by the Defendants. Upon

information and belief, the Defendants wouldn’t have published its defamatory article against the

Plaintiff if he wasn’t a priest.

104. The Defendants have compared Fr. Lemelson to Jorden Belfort, the notorious “Wolf of

Wall Street”, a convicted felon and drug addict who was shut down from doing business by the

National Association of Securities Dealers and served time in jail for the pump-and-dump scams

which he ran that led to investor losses of approximately US$200 million.

105. The substance of the Defendants’ article has been republished, at a minimum of 26 times, by

financial analysts and writers where countless readers and potential investors have read about the

false allegations against Fr. Lemelson --- thus multiplying the harm to his reputation.

106. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful actions, anyone who searches Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson

or Lemelson Capital Management at Google or other search engine will see Defendants’ false and

libelous stories about him in the first page of search results across the world.


30/42

30

107. As a result, anyone who would otherwise have hired or partnered with Fr. Emmanuel or

hired him likely will decline, and have declined, to do so, believing Defendants’ false and libelous

statements about him to be true. Defendants’ actions foreseeably caused such results.

108. Defendants are guilty of intentional misconduct. Defendants had actual knowledge of the

wrongfulness of the conduct described herein and the high probability that injury or damage to

Plaintiffs would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct,

resulting in substantial injury and damage to Fr. Lemelson.

109. Defendants’ conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious

disregard or indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights.

110. Defendants’ actions described herein also have had the foreseeable effect of causing severe

emotional distress to Fr. Lemelson and his family, and did cause him and his family to suffer severe

emotional distress.

111. Defendants’ conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious

disregard or indifference to the Plaintiffs’ rights.


31/42

31

COUNT I (Defamation of Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management, LLC)

112. . The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 111, above.

113. At all relevant times, the Plaintiffs enjoyed the respect, confidence, esteem and of their

neighbors, business associates, parishioners, as well as others in the community.

114. Defendants’ Statements that the Plaintiffs are under investigation by the SEC have created

a false and untrue image that the Plaintiffs are dishonest, unethical, and conducting illegal activities.

115. The Defendants published Defamatory Statements and the Plaintiffs’ Church in its

article on the Bloomberg site and disseminated them on television and via the worldwide web.

116. The Defendants distributed and disseminated defamatory Statements and the Plaintiffs and

Fr. Lemelson’s church to a wide range of persons in the public through television, newspapers,

websites, radio, and countless social media outlets.

117. The Defendants each published false and defamatory Statements about the Plaintiffs and

the Plaintiff’s Church intentionally, notwithstanding their respective and Defendants’ knowledge of


32/42

32

their falsity; in reckless disregard for the truth; and/or in negligent disregard of the truth, intending to

injure the Plaintiffs and to deprive them of their good name and reputation.

118. The Defendants each knew or should have known that their responses were false at the

time of publication.

119. The Defendants’ Statements were printed, published, circulated and distributed by the news

outlets to which they were made, and were widely read by the Plaintiffs’ family, neighbors,

parishioners, believers, friends, colleagues, business associates, and diverse other persons.

120. The Defendants’ Statements each on their face impugned the reputation of the Plaintiff and

Fr. Lemelson’s Church reputation, and tended to expose the Plaintiffs and Fr. Lemelson’s Church to

public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or to induce an evil opinion of them in the minds of

right-thinking persons, to cause to be shunned or avoided, and/or to injure them in their occupation,

good name, character, and reputation.

121. The Defendants’ Statements have each directly and proximately caused the Plaintiffs and

Fr. Lemelson’s Church damages by their loss of reputation, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, and/or

damage to their property, business, trade, profession, and occupation.


33/42

33

122. The Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages because of the damage to the

Plaintiffs was caused by the malicious, willful, wanton, and reckless conduct of the Defendants and/or

by the gross negligence of the Defendants.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that, after trial, a judgment be entered in their favor

and against the Defendants jointly and severally and that damages be awarded to the Plaintiffs in an

amount to be determined at trial, plus interest and costs

COUNT II (Commercial Disparagement)

123. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 114,

above.

124. The Defendants’ falsely stated that the Plaintiffs are under investigation for illegal

activities and disparaged the Plaintiffs’ business and professional opportunities.

125. By publishing the defamatory article on Bloomberg’s website and running reports of it on

its television network, Defendants published disparaging statements about the Plaintiffs and Fr.

Lemelson’s religion to one or more people.

126. Defendants negligently published the false and disparaging statement concerning the

Plaintiffs and Fr. Lemelson’s Church causing their customers, potential customers, colleagues, and

parishioners to regard the Plaintiffs as untrustworthy and imputing deceit, dishonesty and

reprehensible potentially illegal conduct to the Plaintiffs.


34/42

34

127. The Defendants’ statement that Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson is under a potentially serious

investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission are false and untrue, and disparaged the

Plaintiffs’ hedge fund, Fr. Lemelson’s Church, as well as Lemelson Capital Management, LLC.

128. By recklessly and/or intentionally publishing false and disparaging statements on its

websites, social media, and reporting on it on television, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiffs and

members of the Plaintiffs’ religion to scorn and ridicule.

129. Defendants published the false and disparaging statements about Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson,

causing the Plaintiffs to suffer special and general damages, including the loss of potentially important

and valuable clients, parish assignments, and a damaged reputation. The false and damaging

statements caused Fr. Lemelson’s parishioners and fellow believers to be exposed to public ridicule

and disgrace.

130. The Defendants published the false and disparaging Statements about the Plaintiffs and Fr.

Lemelson’s religion with the knowledge that the Statements were false and/ or with reckless disregard

as to the falsity of the Statements.

131. The Defendants each knew or should have known that their Statements were false at the



35/42

35

132. The Defendants’ Statements were printed, published, circulated, and distributed by the

news outlets to which they were made, and were widely read by the Plaintiffs’ family, neighbors,

friends, parishioners, colleagues, business associates, and diverse other persons.

133. The Defendants’ Statements each on their face impugned the Plaintiffs and the reputation

of Fr. Lemelson’s Church, and tended to expose the Plaintiffs and Fr. Lemelson’s religion to public

contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or to induce an evil opinion of them in the minds of right-

thinking persons, to cause to be shunned or avoided, and/or to injure them in their occupation, good

name, character, and reputation.


the Plaintiffs’ Church damage by their loss of reputation, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, and/or

damage to their property, business, trade, profession, and occupation.





and against the Defendants jointly and severally and that damages be awarded to the Plaintiffs in an

amount to be determined at trial, plus interest and costs.


36/42

36

COUNT III (NEGLIGENCE)

127. The Plaintiffs reallege the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through

126 and incorporate those allegations by reference as if fully restated herein.

128. The Defendants, as news gatherers and reporters, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs when

publishing and disseminating information about them. However, the Defendants breached their duty.

129. The Defendants acted with indifference to their legal duty and with utter forgetfulness of

legal obligations so far as the Plaintiffs and readers may be affected.

130. The Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur damages including, but not limited

to financial damage, as well as damage to their good name and reputation, as a direct and proximate

result of the gross and/ or reckless negligence of the Defendants.

131. The Defendants are each liable to Plaintiffs for all damage including but not limited to

financial and reputation damage caused by such gross negligence.

132. The Defendants each knew or should have known that their responses were false at the



37/42

37

133. The Defendants Statements were printed, published, circulated and distributed by the news

outlets to which they were made, and were widely read by the Plaintiffs’ family, neighbors, friends,

colleagues, business associates, and diverse other persons.

134. The Defendants’ Statements each on their face impugned the Plaintiffs’ reputation, and

tended to expose the Plaintiffs to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or to induce an evil

opinion of them in the minds of right-thinking persons, to cause to be shunned or avoided, and/or to

injure them in their occupation, good name, character, and reputation.

135. The Defendants’ Statements have each directly and proximately caused the Plaintiffs

damages by their loss of reputation, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, and/or damage to their

property, business, trade, profession, and occupation.





and against the Defendants jointly and severally and that damages be

awarded to the Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest and costs.


38/42

38

COUNT IV (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)

137. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

through 136 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

138. Defendants knew that Fr. Lemelson, being a priest, financial analyst, religious leader, and

fund manager, had business relationships that were ongoing during the time of Defendants’

publications, and had a reasonable expectation of entering into valid business relationships with

additional individuals and entities, including with companies and universities, which would have been

completed had it not been for Defendants’ wrongful acts.

139. Defendants acted solely out of malice and/or used dishonest, unfair or improper means to

interfere with Plaintiffs’ actual and prospective business relationships, before they defamed Fr.

Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management.

140. Defendants, through the misconduct alleged herein, intended to harm Plaintiffs by

intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with his actual and prospective business relationships.

141. Defendants have seriously damaged Plaintiffs’ actual and prospective business

relationships as a direct and proximate cause of these acts.


39/42

39

139. The Defendants each knew or should have known that their statements were false at the


140. The Defendants’ Statements were printed, published, circulated and distributed by the news

outlets to which they were made, and were widely read by the Plaintiffs’ family, neighbors, friends,

colleagues, business associates, parishioners, members of Fr. Lemelson’s faith community, and

diverse other persons.

141. The Defendants’ Statements each on their face impugned the Plaintiffs’ reputation, and

tended to expose the Plaintiffs and Fr. Lemelson’s faith community to public contempt, ridicule,

aversion or disgrace, or to induce an evil opinion of them in the minds of right-thinking persons, to

cause to be shunned or avoided, and/or to injure them in their occupation, good name, character, and

reputation.


the members of Fr. Lemelson’s faith community damages by their loss of reputation, shame,

mortification, hurt feelings, and/or damage to their property, business, trade, profession, and

occupation.

143. The above-described conduct is egregious and constitutes moral turpitude. As such, in

addition to compensatory damages and/or presumed damages, Plaintiff demands punitive damages in

an amount to be determined at trial.


40/42

40

144. The Defendants knowingly and recklessly disseminated false and malicious information

about the Plaintiffs which have caused irreparable harm to their good name and reputation.





and against the Defendants jointly and severally and that damages be

awarded to the Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest and costs.

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court:

A.

Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from publishing further defamatory

statements about Fr. Lemelson and Lemelson Capital;

B. Order the Defendants to issue a public apology to the Plaintiffs and retraction of the

defamatory article published on all of its websites, television and radio stations, and social

media outlets;

C. Enter judgment against Defendants on all counts of the Complaint;

D. Award Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $ 100,000,000 or in an amount to be determined

at trial;


41/42


42/42

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon each partyappearing pro se and the attorney of record for each party by hand on ________

______________________________

$100 million defamation suit filed against bloomberg l.p., reporter matt robinson and editor jesse...

Documents