located at 4 wyndemere dr. southborough, ma o 1772. · television), digital websites, radio...

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

WORCESTER,SS

Emmanuel Lemelson

and

Lemelson Capital Management, LLC

Plaintiffs

V.

Bloomberg LP,

Matthew Robinson, as an individual and

as an agent of Bloomberg LP,

and Jesse Westbrook, as an individual

and as an agent of Bloomberg LP

CIVIL ACTION NO.

SUPERIOR COURT

��

VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

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 O 1772.

2. Lemelson Capital Management LLC ("Lemelson Capital Management"), the Plaintiff, is limited

liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which manages investment

funds. Lemelson Capital Management's headquarters is 225 Cedar Hill Street- Suite 200

Marlborough, MA 01752.

1

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 Blomberg 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 Blomberg L.P. as an editor and approved of

the defamatory article which gives rise to this action.

6. Plaintiff is 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

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

employment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. The Massachusetts Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to G.L. c. 223A, § 3

and G.L. c. 214, § 1. The amount in controversy exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000),

exclusive of interest and costs. Venue in this forum is proper pursuant to G.L. c. 223, § 1.

FACTS

2

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.

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 congregation and the Metropolitan of

Boston.

3

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 Deleware Limited

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

17. The Arnvona 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 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 Arnvona Fund, LP was formed on September 1, 2012 and is domiciled in the United States

4

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 onfaith, finance, security snalysis,

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.

s

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

gomg concern.

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

management, public comments, as well as the firm's solvency given the firm's mounting debt.

6

27. On or about January 26, 2016, Fr. Lemelson filed a whistleblower report with the United States

Security and Exchange Commission, 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.

7

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 Commisssion ("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 being looked at by the SEC. Please let me know if you'd Zike to comment and get back to me as soon as you can. Thanks

Best,

8

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 overseeing 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 201617:47:21

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 f ell 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,

9

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 Security and Exchange Commission to

verify whether or not the Plaintiff was being investigated.

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

Legand 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.

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."

10

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.

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

44. Upon information and belief, the Securities and Exchange Commission is not investigating the

Plaintiffs.

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

11

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.

4 7. 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

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

the Plaintiff that he has spread false information and rumors in order to unfairly profit.

49. This entire statement in paragraph 49 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

12

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.

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 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."

13

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.

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 factual 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.

14

"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 I apology.

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 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 I 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 ofrecipients Fr. Lemelson's request for a retraction was sent to:

'[email protected]'; '.i [email protected]'; '[email protected]';

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

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




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

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

15

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

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

16

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

and dishonestly.

17

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

From: Jesse Westbrook (BLOOMBERG! NEWSROOM) [mailto:iwestbrookl@bloomberg. net 7 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). "

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.

18

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.

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.

19

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.

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 Plaintiffs 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.

20

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 Plaintiff 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.

1 O 1. 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.

21

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.

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

media coverage because of Fr. Lemelson's religious beliefs.

104. The Defendants lacked reasonable grounds for making the Statements.

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

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

104, above.

106. 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.

107. Defendants' Statements that the Plaintiffs are under investigation by the Security and

Exchange Commission have created a false and untrue image that the Plaintiffs are dishonest,

unethical, and conducting illegal activities.

22

108. The Defendants published defamatory Statements and the Plaintiffs' Church in its article

on the Bloomberg site and disseminating them on television and via the worldwide web.

109. 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.

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

the Plaintiffs Church intentionally, notwithstanding their respective and Defendants' knowledge of

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.

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

time of publication.

112. 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.

23

113. 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.

114. The Defendants' Statements have each directly and proximately caused the Plaintiffs and

Fr. Lemelson's Church damages by their loss ofreputation, shame, mortification, hurt feelings,

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

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)

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

above.

116. The Defendants' falsely stated that the Plaintiffs are under investigation for illegal

activities and disparaged the Plaintiffs' business and professional opportunities.

117. By publishing the defamatory article on Bloomberg's website and running reports on its

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

Lemelson' s religion to one or more people.

24

118. 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.

119. 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.

120. 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.

121. 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.

25

122. 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.

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


124. The Defendants' Statements were printed, published, circulated, and distributed by the


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

125. 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 ofreputation, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, and/or

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

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.

26

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.



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


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

27

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.




COUNT IV (PUNITIVE DAMAGES)

136. The Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 135.

137. 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.

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

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



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


friends, colleagues, business associates, parishioners, members of Fr. Lemelson' s faith community,

and diverse other persons.

28

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.




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;

E. Award Plaintiffs enhanced damages as permitted by law, plus its reasonable attorney fees and the costs of this action; and

F. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

29

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all triable issues.

May 9, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

Thomas R. Mason, Esq. Law Office of Thomas Mason 15 New England Executive Park

. Burlington, MA 01803 (781) 238-0260 BBO# 553968

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

30

EXHIBIT A

32

Hedge Fund Priest's Trades Probed by Wall Street Cop

Matt Robinson

robinsonmatt March l8, 2016- 10:32 AM EDT Updated on March 18, 2016-4:47 PM EDT

~ SEC examining whether he spread false statements about stocks

~ Priest says there is no regulatory probe of his furn

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.

Emmanuel Lemelson

Source: Wikimedia

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. Securities laws prohibit traders from betting a company's

shares will fall and then trying to drive dovvn the price by publishing information that they know isn't

true.

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. The opening

of an SEC probe is typically a preliminary step and doesn't mean Lemelson, who hasn't been accused of

wrongdoing, will ever face an enforcement action.

"There is not now, nor has there ever been, any SEC or other regulatory investigation targeting our

firm," Lemelson said in a statement Friday. "Nor is there a basis for one."

Ryan White, an SEC spokesman, declined to comment.

Divine Gift

While Lemelson's Amvona Fund is a minnow in the $2.9 trillion hedge fund industry, he gained

attention after the Wall Street Journal published a profile of him in October.

The article said Lemelson managed about $20 million, had made millions of dollars for his investors and

quoted him as saying, "my whole life I always knew things before they happened. I guess it's just a gift

from God." The newspaper also reported that Lemelson personally blessed Republican presidential

front-runner Donald Trump at a town hall in New Hampshire.

Lemelson was ordained by the Greek 01ihodox Church, which allows priests to marry and hold jobs

outside their religious duties.

Investors are free to criticize companies and their management, but they can't spread inaccurate

information in order to profit. The SEC sued a short seller in 2008 for telling brokerage firms that

Blackstone Group LP was renegotiating its takeover of Alliance Data Systems Corp., a false rumor that

sent the company's shares down by about 17 percent. Without admitting or denying the allegations, the

trader settled the case by returning the illicit gains and agreeing to pay a $130,000 fine.

Record Sales

In the Lemelson investigation, the SEC is examining commentaries about companies including Ligand

Pharmaceuticals Inc., World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. and Skechers U.S.A. Inc., according to one of

the people.

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 dmgs,

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.

The comments in the Seeking Alpha report on Ligand are attributed to Lemelson Capital, the name of

Lemelson's hedge-fund management company. The exact same report was also posted on Lemelson

Capital's website.

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.

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.

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

Read this next

~ Ken Griffin's Main Citadel Funds Drop 8% in 2016 Market Swings

~ BlueCrest Money Manager John McNiff Said to Leave Hedge Fund

~ Porsche Acquittals May Portend Trouble for Hedge-Fund Suits

• Fund Manager

Terms ofServiceTrademarksPrivacy Policy

©2016 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved

CareersMade in NYCAdvertiseAd Choices Website FeedbackHelp

EXHIBITB

33

Transcript of Bloomberg News

March 18, 2016 10:32 A.M. EDT Updated March 18, 2016 4:47 P.M. EDT

Hedge Fund Priest's Probed By Wall Street Cop

HEDGE FUND HOLINESS

HOST: Introduce us to this guy, ah, he's a Greek Orthodox Priest able to work and be a man of the cloth ah, we think of hedge funds being measured in the trillions this is a small hedge fund in comparison to that

REPORTER MATT ROBINSON: Right, exactly. So, ah, he gained attention last fall and he's been pretty prominent on certain biogs like Seeking Alpha about a lot of his calls but he gained attention last fall when he was profiled as . .. you know . . . someone (laughing) who is at mass on Sunday but also running a fund during the week.

CAPTION: HEDGE FUND PRIEST'S TRADES INVESTIGATED

HOST: Ah, he 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.

REPORTER MATT ROBINSON: 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 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.

'

CAPTION: HEDGE FUND HOLINESS

HOST: Well let's be clear here the investigation is in its early stages; a lot of these SEC investigations don't result in prosecutions, ah, but what is he accused of or what's the interest in .

CAPTION: US INVESTIGATORS INVESTIGATING PRIEST FOR POSSIBLE STOCK MANIPULATION

REPORTER MATT ROBINSON: Well that' s true these cases are hard to bring. 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. So, it's a little tricky for the SEC to bring because you have to split up between what's opinion and what's fact ....

CAPTION: SEC PROBES SHORT & DISTORT SCHEME

HOST: And what kind of companies is he interested in if you look at his portfolio?

REPORTER MATT ROBINSON: So, for instance, one of the companies the SEC is looking at is his commentary in June 2014 about this company Ligand and he put out this commentary saying that one of their drugs the demand was drying up and that as soon as that broke it knocked 7 percent off the stock. Well, since then it's recovered ...

CAPTION: STOCK MANIPULATION SMOKING GUN (with graph of Ligend stock price)

REPORTER MATT ROBINSON: ... but those are the kind of commentary he' s put out. .. these are a little bit smaller these aren't huge market capitalization type companies like Ligend, Sketchers, WWE those types of companies.

CAPTION: HEDGE FUND HOLINESS

2

HOST: Very quickly here, ah .... 30 seconds left, you've spoken with him you've got this statement, what does he have to say for himself and this investigation.

REPORTER MATT ROBINSON: Currently he says he' s not aware of any investigation so that's where it stands.

CAPTIONS:

§ Hedge Fund Priest's Trades Said To Be Investigated

§ SEC Examining Whether He Spread False Statements About Stocks

§ Priest Says There Is No Regulatory Probe Of His Firm

3

located at 4 wyndemere dr. southborough, ma o 1772. · television), digital websites, radio...

Documents