Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Greenlight Capital, Inc., DME Capital
Management, LP,
1:24-cv-No. ______________________
Plaintiffs,
-vs.-
COMPLAINT
James T. Fishback,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Greenlight Capital, Inc. (“Greenlight”) and DME Capital Management, LP
(“DME”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, for their complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendant James T. Fishback
(“Defendant” or “Fishback”) allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
Fishback is a former Greenlight Research Analyst who left Greenlight on August
15, 2023. Correctly deducing that he was about to be terminated for his poor performance and
lack of accountability, Fishback resigned on July 31, 2023. Ever since, he has been on a campaign
to harass, intimidate and defame Greenlight and its co-founder, David Einhorn, by disparaging
them, by falsely inflating his title, responsibilities and contributions to Greenlight, by claiming a
track record that does not belong to him, by commencing complaints and litigation under false
pretenses, and by seeking to interfere with Greenlight’s relationships including with its customers
in violation of Fishback’s legal duties to Greenlight.Page 2 2.
In addition to seeking to harm Greenlight, Fishback purports to have formed a
competing fund, Azoria Partners (“Azoria”). Indeed, Fishback lied to Greenlight even before he
resigned, concealing the fact that he formed Azoria as early as July 4, 2023, almost a full month
before he noticed his resignation. Instead of following industry practice and the law, Fishback
began a campaign to attract investors to Azoria by attempting to expropriate portions of
Greenlight’s track record that don’t belong to him, by making false statements about his
responsibilities at Greenlight, and by misappropriating and misusing Greenlight’s Confidential
Information (defined below).
3.
Fishback falsely represented himself to industry contacts and at industry events as
Greenlight’s “Head of Macro” and the person “running macro investing” at Greenlight and
responsible for the “insane” performance of Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio. None of
these things were true. Fishback was hired as a Research Analyst, and was never promoted by
Greenlight to “Head of Macro.” In fact, the title “Head of Macro” has never existed at Greenlight,
and Mr. Einhorn alone, not Fishback, had the sole authority and discretion to manage and run
Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio, and Mr. Einhorn was responsible for its performance.
Fishback made these false statements to misleadingly inflate his perceived abilities and
responsibilities and to take credit for Greenlight’s track record, goodwill, and reputation. Fishback
apparently thought that this would provide him and Azoria with more credibility and help attract
investors at Greenlight’s expense.
4.
After noticing his resignation, during his final few days at Greenlight, Fishback
forwarded Confidential Information from his Greenlight email address to his personal email
addresses in violation of his Employment Agreement (defined below). This stolen information
included Greenlight’s then-current portfolio of investments and documents reflecting Greenlight’s Page 3 macro investing track record, which constitute Greenlight’s extremely sensitive and valuable
proprietary information. This was just the tip of the iceberg, as a later investigation revealed that
Fishback had sent Greenlight Confidential Information to his personal email accounts on dozens
of occasions during his tenure at Greenlight.
5.
Since leaving Greenlight, Fishback has become even bolder in his wrongful
conduct.
6.
First, Fishback has engaged in a publicity blitz including conferences, podcasts,
social media posts and other written publications to publicly use the false “Head of Macro” title,
to falsely state that he “ran macro investing” at Greenlight, and to falsely claim credit for the
performance of Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio. These statements are injurious to and
malign Greenlight by falsely communicating to the world that Fishback, and not Mr. Einhorn, was
responsible for Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio and its performance, when in fact, the
exact opposite is true.
7.
In fact, Fishback had absolutely no discretion whatsoever over what macro
investments went into Greenlight’s portfolio, how they were sized or risk managed, when profits
were taken or when such positions were to be closed out. Fishback had no ability or responsibility
to take or reduce risk.
8.
Fishback knowingly, recklessly, and maliciously made these false claims, while
knowing full well that only Mr. Einhorn actually had such discretion.
9.
Second, in an attempt to intimidate Greenlight from correcting the public record,
Fishback filed a frivolous lawsuit against Greenlight premised on the idea that it was somehow
defamatory for Greenlight to tell the truth to people who inquired, that Fishback did not hold a Page 4 “Head of Macro” title.
He voluntarily dismissed his claims in favor of arbitration. To date,
Fishback has not commenced such arbitration, nor has he refiled these claims.
10.
Fishback also used false statements in his frivolous lawsuit as an improper
opportunity to publicly misrepresent his role and performance at Greenlight by falsely claiming
that he was “an outstanding performer at Greenlight,” “excelled in his work,” and
“generated over $100 million in profits for Greenlight from the period of February 2021 to August
2023.”
11.
None of this is true. In fact, Fishback was such a poor performer at Greenlight that
Greenlight had actually decided to terminate him for his lack of productivity and scheduled a
meeting with him to do so, but he abruptly resigned when he deduced that he was about to be
terminated. And, since he had absolutely no authority or discretion whatsoever over Greenlight’s
macro investment portfolio, he was not responsible for generating any profits, let alone “over $million” of profits.
12.
Despite the fact that these statements are false, by making statements about
Greenlight’s profitability (albeit using incorrect numbers and falsely attributing the profitability to
himself), Fishback also publicly disclosed Greenlight Confidential Information.
13.
Third, in furtherance of his attempt to harass and intimidate Greenlight, Fishback
also simultaneously filed specious claims with the New York State Division of Human Rights
against Greenlight alleging age discrimination (Fishback was in his late twenties during the
relevant period) and religious discrimination based on his being Roman Catholic. These claims
were all complete fabrications, and Fishback voluntarily dismissed them as well.
14.
Fourth, Fishback continued his campaign to harass and intimidate Greenlight by
threatening to attend and disrupt Greenlight’s 2024 Annual Partner Dinner, which is attended by a Page 5 large number of Greenlight’s investors, counterparties and service providers. After being told that
he would not be allowed to attend the event, Fishback threatened to stand outside the event and
hand out letters to the attendees, including Greenlight’s investors. The letters that he threatened to
hand out contained Greenlight Confidential Information and strategies, maliciously and
disingenuously called into question Greenlight’s macro investing abilities (falsely and maliciously
claiming that no one at Greenlight, including Mr. Einhorn, had “experience in macro derivatives
modeling, pricing or trading”), and prompted investors to ask a series of pointed questions to Mr.
Einhorn at the event. Fishback threatened to do this to embarrass and intimidate Greenlight and
interfere with Greenlight’s relationship with its investors. After receiving multiple warnings from
Greenlight and its counsel as to the wrongful nature of his threats, Fishback ultimately did not
attend the event. But he made no secret of his ongoing desire to harm Greenlight.
15.
Fifth, in May 2024, Fishback deceived the unwitting hosts of a podcast into
extending an “invite” to Mr. Einhorn to debate Fishback on the merits of an investment in Tesla,
and used Mr. Einhorn’s rejection of this sham “invite” as a pretext to capture a wide audience and
launch into a days-long social media and podcast tirade against Greenlight and Mr. Einhorn.
16.
In the media blitz that ensued, Fishback took the opportunity he created to continue
spouting lies about his “Head of Macro” title, his role at Greenlight, and his responsibility for
Greenlight’s success, among the other wrongful acts enumerated below. He also publicly disclosed
additional Greenlight Confidential Information. Fishback’s apparent goal in doing this was to
continue publicly perpetuating his false narrative about his performance, success, and
responsibilities at Greenlight in order to lure investors to his purported hedge fund. In particular,
Fishback seemed to think that it would be especially beneficial to him if he could deceive potential Page 6 investors into believing that he alone holds the secret and ability to replicate Greenlight’s historical
macro investing success.
17.
Sixth, in his May 2024 social media offensive, Fishback wrongfully misused and
disclosed Greenlight’s Confidential Information in violation of his Employment Agreement. After
Fishback left Greenlight, Fishback refused to return or destroy the Confidential Information that
he had stolen from Greenlight, despite Greenlight’s repeated demands that he do so. In May 2024,
he publicly demonstrated that he still possessed and was willing to misuse Greenlight’s
Confidential Information, when he publicly discussed certain of Greenlight’s macro investments
and the purported performance of Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio.
18.
Seventh, in an effort to cover up the truth and make himself look better to potential
investors in Azoria, Fishback has repeatedly and publicly misrepresented multiple reasons for
leaving Greenlight, including the false and defamatory statement that he left due to political
disagreements with Mr. Einhorn. Fishback apparently did so to hide the fact that he actually left
Greenlight because he had been repeatedly warned about his poor performance, and rightly
deduced that he was about to be terminated. Even then, at the time he resigned, the only reason
he gave was that he was leaving to focus on his work with a non-profit organization.
19.
Fishback concocted his phony story about political disagreements with Mr. Einhorn
in May 2024, almost a full year after he resigned, when it became convenient for him to do so in
an effort to attract more publicity by disparaging Mr. Einhorn to build his own following and to
attract interest in Azoria. His statements that he left because he was scrutinized for his political
views are pure fiction.
20.
In fact, in his resignation email to Mr. Einhorn, Fishback actually said “I would
love to continue working with you,” and also pitched Mr. Einhorn to continue consulting for Page 7 Greenlight. This is not something that someone who resigned due to political differences (or due
to a hostile work environment due to age and religious discrimination) would say. Fishback’s false
statements about political disagreements come at Greenlight’s expense as they are injurious to
Greenlight’s reputation as both an employer and investment manager.
21.
Unfortunately for Greenlight, it did not learn until the final weeks and days of
Fishback’s employment that he was using wrongful means to promote himself and harm Greenlight
in the process. And at every juncture since Fishback’s departure, Greenlight has exercised
restraint, and used reasonable, measured responses in order to combat Fishback’s wrongful tactics.
22.
But Fishback has shown no signs that he is going to abide by his legal and
contractual duties to Greenlight, or end his campaign to falsely promote himself at Greenlight’s
expense. On the contrary, Fishback’s most recent conduct shows that he is increasingly desperate
and willing to resort to wrongful tactics now more than ever.
23.
Mr. Fishback’s flippant attitude towards his blatant violations of Greenlight’s rights
is perhaps best demonstrated in a short video Fishback posted on his X account on May 19, titled “Dear David Einhorn.” In the video, which has been viewed more that one million times,
Fishback attempts to somehow portray himself as the victim, and Mr. Einhorn as a bully, and states:
“I want to compete, I want to build a business, I want to create something . . . Let’s compete. Let
me start Azoria. Let me start my hedge fund . . . I don’t know what I did, or you think I did.”
24.
Fishback’s feigned ignorance towards all of his wrongful conduct demonstrates
exactly why Greenlight both needs to resort to legal avenues and deserves protection from this
Court.
25.
Fishback’s conduct has come at great expense to Greenlight. After invoking
Greenlight and Mr. Einhorn’s name in his most recent social media scheme, Fishback’s posts were Page 8 widely viewed, and major media outlets began reporting on the story. Both Fishback’s misuse of
Confidential Information and misrepresentations about his purported responsibility for
Greenlight’s success have caused Greenlight irreparable harm. By falsely conveying that he was
responsible for the management and success of Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio, he has
both wrongfully misappropriated a valuable asset belonging to Greenlight for himself, and harmed
Greenlight by attempting to undermine investor confidence in Greenlight’s capabilities.
26.
The record is clear that Fishback considers Greenlight’s Confidential Information,
goodwill, performance, and reputation to be tools that he can use to both obtain credibility in the
finance world, and generate media buzz in the world at large. That poses two serious problems for
Greenlight.
27.
The first problem is that Fishback has no legal right to do any of these things with
Greenlight’s Confidential Information, goodwill, performance or reputation, and in fact,
Fishback’s actions to date are directly harmful to Greenlight.
28.
The second problem is that Fishback is unlikely to cease his improper conduct in
the absence of a court order. Simply put, Fishback’s behavior demonstrates that he is not concerned
with whether his actions are lawful. He employs dishonest tactics to attain his goals. He has lost
any benefit of the doubt that he is a good faith or rational actor.
PARTIES
29.
Plaintiff Greenlight Capital, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of the state
of Delaware and registered to do business in New York.
30.
Plaintiff DME Capital Management, LP, is a limited partnership formed under the
laws of the state of Delaware and registered to do business in New York.
31.
Upon information and belief, Defendant is an individual and resident of the state of
Florida, residing at 115 Southwest Pinckney Street, Madison, Florida 32340. Page 9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
32.
This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 in value, exclusive of interest and costs,
and is between citizens of different states.
33.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Greenlight and DME are citizens of the states
of Delaware and New York.
34.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant is a citizen of the state of Florida.
35.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant since, among other things, on
information and belief: (i) the Employment Agreement was executed by Greenlight in New York,
Fishback executed and sent the Employment Agreement to Greenlight in New York to become an
employee of Greenlight, the Employment Agreement contained a New York choice of law
provision, and Fishback thereafter visited New York for purposes of the contractual relationship
and his employment with Greenlight; (ii) a substantial portion of Fishback’s misconduct described
herein occurred in New York, or was directed at Plaintiffs in New York causing injury to Plaintiffs
in New York state; and (iii) Fishback transacts business within the state.
36.
Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I.
Greenlight & DME
37.
David Einhorn is the President of Greenlight, which he co-founded in 1996.
Greenlight is a highly respected investment management firm, with billions of dollars in assets
under management. As a successful industry leader, Greenlight has invested substantial time,
money, and resources into developing its own investment methodologies, investment portfolio, Page 10 reputation and goodwill with investors, and other highly commercially sensitive and confidential
information that is critical to Greenlight’s success.
38.
To protect this information, Greenlight has implemented several measures,
including information access protocols regarding how employees may access sensitive company
information and requiring all of its employees to agree to confidentiality obligations regarding
certain company information.
39.
DME, like Greenlight, is owned and controlled by Mr. Einhorn.
After a
restructuring on January 1, 2024, DME became the successor in interest of Greenlight’s business.
II.
Greenlight Hires Fishback
40.
On January 27, 2021, Greenlight sent a letter containing an offer of employment to
Fishback (the “Offer Letter”). The Offer Letter stated that the offer of employment was contingent
on Fishback signing the standard employment agreement that was enclosed with the Offer Letter
(the “Employment Agreement”).
41.
Fishback and Greenlight executed the Employment Agreement on February 8,
2021. Section 5 of the Employment Agreement (the “Confidentiality Provision”),1 contains
multiple subparagraphs that imposed obligations on Fishback with respect to the use and handling
of certain information (defined therein as “Confidential Information”) that Fishback would have
access to as a Greenlight employee. The subparagraphs of the Confidentiality Provision in section
5 state:
(i) To assist Employee in the performance of his duties, the Company agrees to
provide to Employee special training and information regarding the Company’s
business methods and access to certain Confidential Information (as defined below)
and materials belonging to the Company, its affiliates, and to third parties, including
but not limited to investors and prospective investors of the Company who have
Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is entitled “Confidential Information,” but is referred to herein
as the “Confidentiality Provision,” to avoid confusion with the defined term “Confidential Information” that appears
in Section 5 and that is also discussed herein. Page 11 furnished such information and materials to the Company under obligations of
confidentiality.
(ii) Except as expressly permitted by the Company in writing, Employee agrees that
he shall not (either during his employment by the Company or thereafter) disclose
to any person not connected with the Company or use for his own benefit or for the
benefit of any person other than the Company any Confidential Information either
disclosed to or developed by the Employee during his employment by the
Company. For purposes of this agreement, “Confidential Information” shall
include, but not be limited to, all investor lists, prospective investor lists,
investments (except where publicly disclosed), investment methodologies,
methods of dealing, investment track records, investment recommendations,
investment performance, performance records of any individual investment
position, performance records of any Company fund, performance records of
Employee, information that supports the performance record of any Company
fund or of Employee, and other confidential business information related to the
conduct of the Company's business and/or the business of any of the Company’s
affiliates.
(iii) In the event of termination of Employees employment with the Company,
Employee agrees to deliver promptly to the Company all Confidential Information,
equipment, documents, notes, reports, files, books, correspondence, lists, and other
written or graphic reports and the like relating to the Company's or any affiliate's
business which are or have been in his possession or under his control.
(iv) Nothing contained in this Agreement supersedes, conflicts with, or otherwise
alters the Employee's rights or obligations under existing statute, law, rule,
regulation or order relating to the reporting to applicable governmental authority of
a violation of any law, rule, or regulation as required by law.
Employment Agreement § 5 (emphasis added).
42.
Thus, Fishback agreed, in recognition of the highly commercially sensitive and
confidential nature of the information received in the course of his employment, that he would not
disclose to any third party or use for his or others’ benefit such Confidential Information and that
he would return and not retain any Confidential Information following the termination of his
employment. Per the plain terms of the Confidentiality Provision, the Confidential Information
subject to these obligations includes, among other things, information regarding current or Page 12 potential Greenlight investments, Greenlight’s investment and fund performance, Greenlight’s
track record, and Greenlight’s investment methodologies and recommendations.
III.
Fishback Consistently Underperforms as an Employee at Greenlight
43.
Throughout the course of Fishback’s employment at Greenlight, Fishback failed to
meet even minimal performance expectations. Fishback consistently failed to devote appropriate
time and effort to his Greenlight responsibilities and was notified repeatedly that his work product
was unacceptably delayed, undeveloped, or otherwise incomplete. Furthermore, he also showed
a lack of accountability, and even dishonesty, about his performance issues and his outside personal
ventures.
A. Fishback’s Performance Issues: 2021-44.
As early as October 2021, Mr. Einhorn informed Fishback that he was on formal
notice and that he was on “thin ice,” due in part to errors and carelessness in his performance. In
Fishback’s formal year-end performance assessment for 2021, Greenlight also communicated to
him that his failure “to make himself more valuable to the firm” had “left himself with a smaller
margin for error.”45.
Fishback’s substandard performance continued into 2022. When these performance
issues were raised to Fishback, Greenlight came to understand that he would avoid accountability
through dishonesty. For instance, in the first quarter of 2022, Fishback made careless errors in his
own work on multiple occasions, but attempted to blame others in order to avoid personal
accountability.
This statement refers to the fact that when he was hired, Fishback promised to do a sensitivity analysis of
Greenlight’s existing portfolio to a variety of macro variables, which he never did, and the fact that Greenlight had
offered to train Fishback as a junior trader, which he abandoned less than six weeks into training. His failure to do
the sensitivity analysis, and his declining the opportunity to be a junior trader, were some of the reasons Fishback
failed to make himself more valuable to the firm. Page 13 46.
For example, in January 2022, at Mr. Einhorn’s direction, Greenlight executed a
macro derivative transaction, which Fishback executed with a counterparty. In accordance with
Greenlight policy, Fishback sent an email with the details of the trade to Greenlight’s operations
staff informing them that the required initial margin for the transaction was $1.4 million. In reality,
however, the counterparty had requested $4.1 million of initial margin.
47.
When Greenlight’s operations staff asked Fishback about the discrepancy, he did
not have a ready answer. As it turned out, the parties had changed the notional amount of the trade
and Fishback had either neglected to recalculate, or perhaps to even reconsider, the impact of such
change on the amount of the required initial margin.
48.
Greenlight’s operations staff alerted senior management, including Mr. Einhorn,
about the issue, as the operations staff was becoming concerned with the repeated unreliability of
Fishback’s work product.
49.
When Mr. Einhorn confronted Fishback about this particular issue, Fishback did
not take ownership of his mistake, instead replying that it was “a bank error.” In fact, there was
no bank error. After the notional amount of the trade had changed, the counterparty had correctly
recalculated the amount of the required initial margin of $4.1 million, and Fishback failed to do
so. The error was Fishback’s by his failing to recalculate the required initial margin.
50.
Throughout 2022, Greenlight provided Fishback with clear notice that he was not
meeting expectations. For instance, on April 19, 2022, Mr. Einhorn expressed disappointment
with the lack of substance in an assignment that Fishback had taken six days to complete and
expressed to him that he thought Fishback’s “work, as shown, could be replicated in about minutes.” Page 14 51.
In Fishback’s formal year-end performance assessment for 2022, Greenlight also
communicated to him that “[w]hen projects are assigned by David to James, they often don’t
get evaluated in a timely manner and sometimes not at all” (emphasis added). The assessment
continued that: “[t]o summarize: we aren’t sure whether the lack of work is because (a) James
disagrees with the topic, so he refuses to indulge David’s request in a passive/aggressive way, (b)
James isn’t capable of investigating these types of questions, or (c) James isn’t committing enough
hours to his work at Greenlight.”
B. Potential Gift-Matching Incident
52.
Greenlight also became concerned with Fishback’s preoccupation with his personal
outside endeavors, and his ability to be forthcoming and honest with Greenlight, toward the end
of 2022.
53.
For example, Greenlight has an annual gift-matching program in which it matches
eligible contributions made by its employees to charitable organizations, up to $10,000. On
November 28, 2022, Fishback requested that Greenlight match a $10,000 donation he made to an
organization that he created and ran called the Macrovoyant Foundation (“Macrovoyant”).
54.
As part of the gift matching program, Greenlight has fairly standard requirements
for this type of program that participating employees must provide proof of their own donation
and wire information for the organization. Greenlight asked Fishback to comply with these
requirements for his matching gift request for Macrovoyant. Greenlight became suspicious when
Fishback was unable to provide proof of his own donation or other information verifying that
Greenlight’s donation would be received and handled legitimately by Macrovoyant.
55.
When Fishback made his initial request on November 28, the only “proof” that he
provided for his donation was a picture of an uncashed personal check made out to “Macrovoyant Page 15 Foundation.” He also requested that Greenlight provide the matching donation in the form of a
check as opposed to a wire transfer, but did not explain why that was necessary.
56.
Greenlight informed Fishback the next day that a picture of an uncashed check was
not sufficient proof of his donation, and asked Fishback to provide a tax receipt for the donation.
Approximately one month later, on December 27, 2022, Fishback provided an unsigned letter, not
on letterhead, purporting to be a receipt from Macrovoyant. He again reiterated the need for a
check, asking “[c]ould you kindly make the match in check form? The foundation is in the process
of moving bank accounts so wire won’t work.” Greenlight informed Fishback that the unsigned
letter was not sufficient proof of his donation.
57.
Another month later, on January 27, 2023, Fishback sent Greenlight an email with:
(i) a screenshot purporting to show a wire transfer, and (ii) a screenshot purporting to show a Bank
of America account, with each screenshot showing a $10,000 transfer to “Macrovoyant
Foundation” on November 29, 2022.
However, there was no donor information in either
screenshot and Fishback’s name did not appear in either screenshot. Greenlight informed Fishback
yet again that this was not a sufficient proof of payment.
58.
On January 30, 2023, Greenlight followed up again via email to inquire about proof
of his donation, and Fishback responded by saying that he was not authorized to share the
organization’s bank statements without approval from the Board, but sent another screenshot,
purporting to be from the website Givebutter, which showed a donation in his name to
“Macrovoyant Foundation Corporation” on January 30, 2023.
59.
Greenlight ultimately decided not to accommodate Fishback’s request given that he
was unable to provide credible information to Greenlight about his donation in a timely manner, Page 16 why Greenlight’s payment needed to be in check form, and his overall lack of transparency
surrounding his requests since November 28.
60.
Fishback’s insistence that Greenlight provide a check as opposed to a wire because
the foundation was “moving bank accounts” did not make any sense, considering that an
organization would typically open a new account before closing an old one.
61.
The request for a check on November 28 was ever more curious, because Fishback
later purported to show Greenlight a wire from himself to Macrovoyant of $10,000 on November
29, just one day after he had requested the payment from Greenlight to Macrovoyant be in check
form.
62.
Furthermore, his inability to provide any bona fide proof of payment—like a tax
receipt—from Macrovoyant, the charity that he ran, raised questions as to the legitimacy of his
own donation.
63.
Finally, it made no sense that Fishback hid behind the charity’s Board, considering
he was the founder of the charity.
64.
Overall, Greenlight found that Fishback’s manner of requesting $10,000 from
Greenlight for his own personal charity and his inability to provide required basic information
raised questions as to whether Fishback was demonstrating appropriate personal integrity with
Greenlight about the gift-match.
C. Performance Issues Continue Into 65.
Fishback’s performance issues persisted into 2023 and were compounded because
he was devoting increasing time and effort to his personal endeavors, like Macrovoyant Foundation
(also known as Incubate Debate), which focused on high-school debate, at the expense of
performing his job as a full-time Greenlight Research Analyst. Page 17 66.
For example, on April 13, 2023, Greenlight learned for the first time Fishback was
managing five full-time employees at Incubate Debate. Fishback had never disclosed this to
Greenlight, in violation of its internal compliance and conflicts policies that require disclosure of
such outside engagements.
67.
At approximately the same time, senior management at Greenlight communicated
to Fishback that it was clear that his involvement with his personal endeavors, like Incubate
Debate, was detrimental to his performance at Greenlight.
68.
Fishback acknowledged that Greenlight’s criticisms were valid, and apologized
and communicated that he would resolve the issue by hiring an executive director for Incubate
Debate, so that he would not need to be involved in the organization’s day-to-day activities.
69.
Despite his representations, Fishback remained preoccupied with his personal
endeavors and his performance did not improve. On May 29, 2023, Mr. Einhorn emailed Fishback
and pointed out that Fishback had failed to provide a daily email summary of macro events that
Mr. Einhorn had requested and stated that it appeared Fishback had ignored his direction.
70.
Mr. Fishback replied, apologizing and stating “David, you are not missing anything.
This is my fault.”
71.
Mr. Einhorn responded as follows:
I’m adding [Daniel Roitman], so that we don’t have a game of telephone. If the
below is correct, then you can’t tell him that you have taken what was said at your
review to heart and made great progress. We genuinely doubt you are working
as a full time employee. We don’t have punch clocks and you work remotely. So,
the burden of proof is on you. And, it looks like your side gig is cutting into
Greenlight. In fact, it really doesn’t appear to me that you are doing any
meaningful amount of work for Greenlight. If I didn’t like you, I’d fire you now.
But, you are on very, very thin ice. I don’t intend to continue to have this argument
with you. (emphasis added). Page 18 72.
On June 2, 2023, at a scheduled research meeting with Fishback, Mr. Einhorn
expressed his continued dissatisfaction with Fishback’s work.
Mr. Einhorn stated that
organizational confidence in Fishback was extremely low and reminded Fishback that he “was on
thin ice.”
73.
Fishback acknowledged that he had let the firm down, needed to do a better job at
prioritizing tasks that he had promised Greenlight that he would do, and apologized, again.
74.
Greenlight’s patience with Fishback finally ran out in late July 2023. On July 26,
2023, Fishback submitted a draft essay (the “Jelly Donut Assignment”) to Mr. Einhorn that he had
been assigned to write in February 2023. After many delays, the draft essay was finally supposed
to be delivered on July 24, 2023. Despite it being two days beyond the most recent deadline, and
despite Fishback have having had months to complete the Jelly Donut Assignment, the draft essay
appeared to reflect only a few hours of effort.
75.
After receiving the Jelly Donut Assignment on July 26, and determining that it did
not reflect a substantial amount of work, Greenlight reviewed its computer system and discovered
that Fishback had almost no work files saved on Greenlight’s network drive, and had engaged in
very little activity on Greenlight’s computer system. This effectively confirmed that Fishback had
not put any serious amount of work into the Jelly Donut Assignment, as he would have needed to
have been active in the network drive during the process in order to do so.
76.
Moreover, since this review revealed that virtually none of Fishback’s work had
been saved on Greenlight’s network drive, Fishback must either have been saving his Greenlight
work files—which would have included a vast amount of Confidential Information—on his
personal devices, in direct violation of Greenlight’s policies and his Employment Agreement, or
he did not do any meaningful work during his entire tenure at Greenlight. Page 19 77.
After this review, Greenlight finally decided to terminate Fishback for his lack of
productivity, failure to perform his duties, and violations of company policies
78.
On Monday, July 31, 2023, Mr. Einhorn’s assistant emailed Fishback at 10:48 a.m.
to inform him that Mr. Einhorn wanted to schedule a Zoom call for noon that day. The unstated
purpose of that Zoom call was to terminate Fishback’s employment.
79.
In response, at 10:56 a.m., Fishback requested that the Zoom call be rescheduled to
3:30 p.m. allegedly due to his travel schedule. Then, a mere 27 minutes after delaying the Zoom
call, Fishback tendered his resignation to Greenlight via email, and provided notice that his last
day of employment would be on August 15, 2023.
80.
Greenlight understood at that time that Fishback likely deduced that the purpose of
the Zoom call with Mr. Einhorn was to terminate him, so Fishback resigned first to avoid the
embarrassment of termination.
81.
In Fishback’s resignation email to Mr. Einhorn on July 31, 2023, Fishback stated
that the reason he was leaving was to focus on his non-profit, Incubate Debate. Fishback wrote
that “I would love to continue working with you. If you’d have me, I hope we could return to a
part-time consulting arrangement, where I could share macro trade ideas with you and pursue my
passion with Incubate Debate.” (emphasis added).
82.
In a second email to Mr. Einhorn on August 6, 2023, Fishback reiterated those
sentiments, stating: “[a]s I mentioned in my email on Monday, it is my hope to return to my
original role as an external consultant and advise on existing and new macro positions….”
(emphasis added).
83.
As further discussed herein, however, Fishback had other motives at that time that
Greenlight has since discovered, but were not yet apparent to Greenlight at that time. Page 20 IV.
Greenlight Discovers Fishback’s Other Misconduct on the Eve of His Departure
84.
After Fishback resigned, Greenlight learned that before he left Greenlight, Fishback
had taken concrete steps to form Azoria. He had also secretly violated his duties to Greenlight.
85.
Specifically: (1) without Greenlight’s knowledge or permission, and in order to
build his credibility before launching Azoria, Fishback had participated (or registered to
participate) in at least five industry events and used false credentials at four of these events to
artificially inflate his importance at Greenlight; and (2) in violation of his Employment Agreement
and Greenlight’s compliance policies, Fishback surreptitiously sent Greenlight’s Confidential
Information to his personal email accounts in his final days at Greenlight, as he had also secretly
done dozens of times before during his tenure at Greenlight.
86.
Fishback’s plan to start a competing business built off the wrongful
misappropriation of Greenlight’s reputation and Confidential Information began to be revealed to
Greenlight when Greenlight learned that Fishback had clandestinely signed up for the 2023 Citi
Equities Conference which was being held in Miami Beach on September 12-14, 2023 (the “Citi
Conference”).
A. Fishback’s Misrepresentations Regarding His Greenlight Title
87.
On August 1, 2023, Greenlight received an email with information about the Citi
Conference. The email showed that Fishback was scheduled to speak as Greenlight’s “Head of
Macro.” This email was the first time Greenlight learned that Fishback was making
misrepresentations about his work with Greenlight, and his title, to third parties.
88.
In fact, since Fishback did not request Greenlight’s permission to speak at the Citi
Conference, as he was required to do so by Greenlight policy, prior to receiving the August 1 email,
Greenlight did not know that Fishback had even registered as a speaker for the Citi Conference,
let alone used the fictitious “Head of Macro” title. Page 21 89.
In response, Greenlight performed a search of other Fishback engagements and
learned that, unbeknown to Greenlight, Fishback had participated in at least four prior speaking
engagements where he used a false title or credentials, and that he had used similar variations on
the “Head of Macro” title at two of them.3 Fishback did not request or receive the required
preapproval from Greenlight for any of these events, and in at least two instances, also used the
Greenlight name and logo without permission.
90.
This fabricated job title “Head of Macro” has never existed at Greenlight, and
Fishback’s job title at the time of all of these engagements, as it had always been, was “Research
Analyst.” More concerning to Greenlight is that Fishback chose the false title “Head of Macro”
in order to convey to the public, and potential Azoria investors, that he had greater importance to
Greenlight’s operations than the title “Research Analyst” would imply, and to improperly suggest
that he was responsible for the management and performance of Greenlight’s macro investment
portfolio.
B. Fishback Created Azoria, a Competing Hedge Fund, While at Greenlight, and Lied to
Greenlight About It
91.
When Greenlight confronted Fishback about his planned appearance at the Citi
Conference, he was forced to reveal for the first time that he had started Azoria, the new business
he had formed while still employed as a Research Analyst at Greenlight.
Those other instances include (1) the University of Florida CAPS – Career and Academic Peer Mentors
podcast released on February 9, 2022, where Fishback stated that he “helped run global macro investing at
Greenlight;” (2) Columbia Alpha Partners “Breaking Into Hedge Funds with James Fishback & Greenlight Capital”
event on October 11, 2022, where Fishback used the title “Head of Macroeconomic Research”; (3) the ALPFA at
University of Florida’s “Speaking on Asset Management, Inflation And the Fed” event on March 22, 2023, where
Fishback used the title “Head of Global Macroeconomic Investing;” and (4) a Foundation for Individual Rights and
Expression Conference on June 15, 2023 where Fishback stated that he “ran global macro at Greenlight Capital.”
Fishback also made an unauthorized presentation on March 10, 2022, in connection with Florida State University
that was advertised as the “Greenlight Capital Speaker Series with James Fishback.” It is unclear what title he used
at this event. Page 22 92.
After Greenlight received the email with the Citi Conference agenda, Greenlight
requested Fishback to provide contact information for the Citi Conference, so that Greenlight could
correct the agenda. Fishback did not provide the requested contact information, but instead, on
August 9, 2023, sent Greenlight’s Chief Operating Officer a revised agenda for the Citi Conference
which now listed Fishback as “Founder & CIO, Azoria Partners,” which is the first time that
Greenlight learned about the existence of Azoria. In his August 9 email, Fishback said “[t]hey’ve
updated it and removed my Greenlight affiliation, replacing it with the name of the consulting LLC
I’m starting to service a few clients.” This was false.
93.
In fact, Azoria is not a “consulting LLC,” but the hedge fund that Fishback currently
purports to operate, is actively promoting on social media, and that Fishback has explicitly stated
he intends to use to directly compete with Greenlight. Fishback had conveniently failed to mention
the existence of Azoria to Greenlight at any point in time before August 9, 2023, and it was
curiously missing from his resignation email in which he stated he was leaving to focus on his
non-profit, Incubate Debate.
94.
Indeed, Greenlight subsequently learned that the domain name for the Azoria
Partners’ website, which is still in use today, was registered on July 4, 2023, almost a full month
before Fishback noticed his resignation from Greenlight.
95.
When Greenlight eventually discovered that Fishback formed Azoria as a
competing hedge fund, Fishback’s motivation for use of the fabricated “Head of Macro” title
became much clearer. By using the false title, Fishback was (and is) holding himself out to the
public as responsible for Greenlight’s macro investment successes and track record. In turn, it
appears that Fishback believed he could garner credibility and resources for his own competing
ventures by doing so unbeknown to Greenlight. Page 23 C. Fishback Transferred Greenlight’s Confidential Information to Himself
96.
Greenlight naturally became more suspicious of Fishback’s motives following its
discoveries above. Greenlight discovered that on August 15, 2023, Fishback’s final day at
Greenlight, Fishback forwarded an “End of Day Package” that had been circulated internally at
Greenlight on July 28, 2023, and which contained, among other things, a full list of the investments
in Greenlight’s portfolio, information pertaining to investment performance, and investment track
records, to his personal non-Greenlight email address from his work email account.
97.
Such information undoubtedly constituted Confidential Information, as that term is
defined in the Employment Agreement. Because Fishback forwarded this information to himself
surreptitiously, without authorization, and with no legitimate purpose related to his employment
with Greenlight, this constituted a clear violation of the Confidentiality Provision in his
Employment Agreement.
98.
Further investigation showed that this was not the only occasion on which Fishback
had personally retained Confidential Information in violation of the Confidentiality Provision. On
August 11, 2023, Fishback also surreptitiously forwarded to his personal email account
Confidential Information relating to the year-to-date profit and loss of certain Greenlight interest
rate positions.
99.
While Greenlight is still attempting to ascertain the full extent of the Confidential
Information that Fishback took, it seems that dozens of times during his tenure at Greenlight,
Fishback surreptitiously emailed information from his Greenlight email account to one of his
several personal email accounts, including information about specific Greenlight macro
investments, and their performance. Page 24 100.
As discussed in further detail infra, however, Greenlight has learned through
Fishback’s recent public statements that he has made since leaving Greenlight that he still has
possession of Confidential Information that he had stolen during his tenure at Greenlight.
D. Greenlight Warns Fishback Against Misconduct and Fishback Reveals His Scheme
101.
On August 15, 2023, immediately after Greenlight became aware that Fishback sent
Confidential Information to his personal email account, Greenlight’s Chief Operating Officer, Mr.
Daniel Roitman, emailed Fishback notifying him that Greenlight detected his attempt to
misappropriate Confidential Information and demanding that he delete the information. Mr.
Roitman also warned Fishback against using inaccurate titles.
102.
In response, Fishback replied “Deleted. I thought I was the ‘head of macro.’”
103.
Greenlight has serious reasons to doubt that Fishback ever deleted any of the
Confidential Information he took from Greenlight. As further discussed below, Greenlight’s
counsel has sent multiple letters to Fishback asking him to confirm the deletion of all Greenlight
Confidential Information in his possession, which he has never replied to, and, just recently, on
May 23, 2024, he publicly confirmed that he is still in possession of at least one of Greenlight’s
documents containing Confidential Information.
104.
Furthermore, Fishback knew full well that he had never held any other job title at
Greenlight besides Research Analyst. But in a disingenuous and transparent revelation of the
scheme he had planned to carry out, he attached to his response a screenshot of an email he had
also curiously forwarded from his work email to his personal email account that day.
105.
The screenshot was an email from Mr. Roitman to Ms. Heather Robinson, a Senior
Manager of the GLG Group on May 11, 2023 (the “GLG Email”). The email thread began with
Ms. Robinson contacting Mr. Roitman to promote a “Remote Roundtable” meeting her firm was
hosting, and offering to “save [] a seat” for Greenlight. In response, Mr. Roitman asked Ms. Page 25 Robinson to sign Fishback up for the meeting, which was relevant to Fishback’s duties as a
Research Analyst focused on macro positions, and introduced Fishback onto the email thread by
informally remarking that he is “our head of macro.”
106.
To be clear, Mr. Roitman was not stating that this was his formal title, as is obvious
from the context and lack of a proper noun. The Remote Roundtable was a GLG “Signature Event”
available only to senior executives (only Mr. Einhorn and Mr. Roitman were invited), and Mr.
Roitman exaggerated his description of Fishback so that GLG would allow him to attend the event.
107.
Fishback knew that his title at Greenlight was “Research Analyst.” But it was clear
from Fishback’s defiant response to Mr. Roitman’s email that he intended to leverage an informal
remark in a single stray email as “support” for a fictious formal title that he alone created.
108.
Fishback’s emailed statement to Mr. Roitman on August 15 that he “thought” his
title was “head of macro” was completely disingenuous, and in retrospect, just the beginning of
the misrepresentations that Fishback intended to make to the public and potential investors. It is
also quite telling that on August 15 Fishback stole two emails from Greenlight’s system: the full
portfolio of investments and the GLG Email.
109.
Fishback had no reasonable basis to believe that he was ever given the title or
promoted to “Head of Macro.” Contrary to Fishback’s public statements, promotions are a big
deal at Greenlight, and people are absolutely not “given new responsibilities pretty much on a
whim” at Greenlight as he has since claimed publicly. His statement as such is outrageous and
defamatory.
110.
If Fishback had been promoted, his change of title would have been widely
communicated by Greenlight and documented in its records. There have been eighteen actual Page 26 promotions at Greenlight since 2011, and all eighteen were communicated to Greenlight’s
investors in its quarterly letters.
111.
Fishback’s alleged “promotion” to “Head of Macro” was not communicated to
investors in one of Greenlight’s quarterly letters because the alleged “promotion” never actually
occurred. Fishback’s public claims that he was promoted are abject lies. Indeed, the only title that
Greenlight ever included in its materials including organizational charts and firm brochures for
Fishback was “Research Analyst.”
112.
To be certain, Greenlight reviewed its own records, and found that the only time
anyone at Greenlight (other than Fishback himself) used the term “head of macro,” was the single
stray comment in the GLG Email from Mr. Roitman to Ms. Robinson.
113.
Fishback’s claim that he genuinely “thought” this was his official title is patently
unreasonable and defies common sense and the facts.
114.
The record is clear. Fishback was never promoted to “Head of Macro” and the title
“Head of Macro” has never existed at Greenlight.
115.
In fact, Fishback himself demonstrated that he knew that he never held the title
“Head of Macro.” When Greenlight reviewed its records, it identified that Fishback had used the
fabricated “Head of Macro” title in his emails exactly four times. Three instances were when
Fishback tried to set up a meeting with John Williams, the Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York.4 In an email on May 15, 2023 (which he re-forwarded to Mr. Williams again on
June 7 and 24) to Mr. Williams, Fishback used an email signature block that read “Head of Macro,
Greenlight Capital, Inc.”
The fourth email is when Fishback registered for the Citi Conference and provided a short bio with the
title of “head of global macro.” Page 27 116.
Quite tellingly, after sending this email on May 15, 2023, Fishback changed his
email signature block back to his normal signature block that did not say “Head of Macro.” If
Fishback genuinely thought he had the title “Head of Macro,” why would he change his signature
block to eliminate the title? Importantly, no one from Greenlight was copied on any of the emails
to Mr. Williams.
117.
V.
Simply put, this behavior demonstrates Fishback’s fraudulent intent.
Fishback’s Continued Title Misrepresentations Shortly After Leaving Greenlight
and Greenlight’s Demand Letters
118.
Considered alongside Fishback’s other actions during his employment with
Greenlight, it is clear that by using made up titles that aggrandized his role at Greenlight, Fishback
overstated his importance to Greenlight’s success, in order to create publicity and build credibility
for Azoria.
119.
This much was confirmed shortly after Fishback’s employment with Greenlight
terminated. Specifically, on September 27, 2023, Mr. Roitman received the following email from
a Mr. Jeffery Rehm, whose email signature indicates that he was the “Director of Investments” at
Legacy Wealth Advisors, in Miami, Florida:
I hope this finds you well. My firm is looking at James Fishback's
new hedge fund (Azoria Partners) and I'm hoping to confirm some
information with you.
1. Was James employed at Greenlight from February 2021 until his
resignation in August 2023?
2. What were James’ responsibilities as Greenlight's Head of Macro?
3. In aggregate over his employment, did James’ investments
contribute positively to Greenlight's returns?
120.
After receiving this inquiry, Mr. Roitman emailed Fishback on September 28,
and wrote “I want you to correct the record or I will be forced to do so.” Fishback ultimately Page 28 replied “Do whatever you need to do.” Consequently, Mr. Roitman replied Mr. Rehm on
September 29, with the following email:
Sorry for the late reply but I was on a business trip.
1. James was employed at Greenlight as a Research Analyst from
February 2021 through August 2023.
2. He was not Head of Macro. We do not have Heads at Greenlight
as David Einhorn makes all portfolio management decisions. James
responsibilities were to suggest macro trading ideas to David that
could be standalone good risk-adjusted bets where we had a variant
perception, or that could hedge areas of the portfolio where we
wanted to minimize our exposure to macro factors.
3. We generally do not comment on an individual analyst’s ideas as
David has trading discretion over the portfolio.
121.
Like other elements of Fishback’s relationship with Greenlight, even this innocuous
looking reference check is suspicious. Mr. Rehm is apparently an employee of Legacy Wealth
Advisors. The Azoria website states that “Azoria is an investment manager founded and led by
James T. Fishback and Asaf H. Abramovich.” Mr. Abramovich’s LinkedIn profile and regulatory
filings show that he worked for Legacy Wealth Advisors immediately before co-founding Azoria.
A review of Fishback’s communications on Greenlight servers also revealed that Fishback knew
Mr. Rehm before leaving Greenlight. After Mr. Roitman responded to Mr. Rehm, Mr. Rehm never
followed-up on his inquiry.
122.
However, as discussed in further detail below, Mr. Rehm’s email exchange with Mr.
Roitman made its way to Fishback and wound up forming the sole basis for a frivolous defamation
suit that Fishback filed against Greenlight. Fishback claimed in his suit against Greenlight that
Mr. Rehm would have invested $5 million in Azoria, but for Mr. Roitman’s email, which allegedly
cast doubt on Fishback’s credibility. Page 29 123.
Putting together Fishback’s ties to Mr. Rehm, Mr. Rehm’s targeted questions
towards the “Head of Macro” title, the lack of any follow-up from Mr. Rehm on the diligence for
an alleged $5 million investment, the fact that Mr. Rehm and Mr. Roitman’s email exchange made
its way to Fishback (after he alleged that it made him out to be a liar to Mr. Rehm), and that
Fishback seemed unconcerned that Mr. Roitman was going to tell Mr. Rehm (a supposedly
important potential investor) that Fishback was not the Head of Macro, Greenlight has a reasonable
basis to suspect that Fishback manufactured this “reference check,” especially since he has recently
shown that he is willing to deceive others into communicating with Greenlight to create pretext
for his schemes, as discussed below in connection with the “Wall Street Skinny” podcast inquiry
Greenlight received in May 2024.
124.
In any event, Fishback had not heeded Greenlight’s demands about not using fake
titles. Indeed, a review of Fishback’s X (formerly Twitter) account, his own personal website,
fshbck.com, and the website and LinkedIn page for Azoria around the same time showed that
Fishback was holding himself out as Greenlight’s former “Head of Macro.”
125.
As a result, on October 11, 2023, Greenlight sent Fishback a letter (the “First
Demand Letter”) that, inter alia, demanded that Fishback cease holding himself out as having held
any title other the title he actually held at Greenlight, which was “Research Analyst.” Greenlight
clearly communicated that Fishback’s representations to the contrary that he was “Head of Macro”
were false. The letter demanded that Fishback return (or destroy, as applicable), Greenlight’s
Confidential Information in his possession or control.
126.
On October 19, 2023, Greenlight sent Fishback a second letter (the “Second
Demand Letter”) reiterating the demands made in the First Demand Letter, and documenting
certain of Fishback’s efforts which showed that he had received the First Demand Letter, but was Page 30 trying to obfuscate that fact in an attempt to deny that he had received notice. The Second Demand
Letter observed that within twenty-four hours of sending the First Demand Letter, the contact email
address that was posted on the website and LinkedIn account for Azoria Partners had been changed
from james@azoriapartners.com to sunset@azoriapartners.com.
127.
Fishback has never responded to either of these letters. Instead, and as further
detailed herein, he has consistently attempted to harass Greenlight by initiating frivolous litigation
against Greenlight, continuing to publicly promote himself using false statements regarding his
title and role with Greenlight, and misusing his knowledge of Greenlight’s Confidential
Information in order to remain in the public eye and benefit from Greenlight’s notoriety and
reputation, harming Greenlight in the process.
VI.
Fishback Attempts to Silence Greenlight with Frivolous Litigation
128.
It has become apparent that Fishback considered misrepresenting his title and role
with Greenlight and his alleged responsibility for Greenlight’s macro investment performance to
be a valuable tool for self-promotion.
129.
In an effort to legitimatize his misrepresentations, Fishback initiated frivolous
litigation against Greenlight, in the hopes that it would give him leverage to use his fake title and
to intimidate Greenlight from publicly objecting.
130.
Fishback filed a complaint against Greenlight on October 23, 2023, in New York
State Supreme Court (the “Defamation Complaint”). The Defamation Complaint frivolously
alleged that Greenlight defamed him by denying that he had held the “Head of Macro” title.
131.
In response, Greenlight moved for alternative forms of relief. First, Greenlight
invoked the arbitration provision in Fishback’s Employment Agreement, so as to not waive the
right to arbitration. In the alternative, Greenlight moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to Page 31 adequately state claims for defamation, citing several fundamental legal issues with Fishback’s
claims.
132.
First, Greenlight pointed out that Fishback failed to identify when, how, or to whom
Greenlight had made the alleged defamatory statements, as he was required to do under New York
law. Instead, Fishback vaguely alleged that Greenlight’s Mr. Roitman had told “a partner and
director of investments at a preeminent family office” at some unspecified point in time that he
“was not Head of Macro.” Fishback notably failed to identify this person as Mr. Rehm, who
worked at Legacy Wealth Advisors, the same firm that the co-founder of Azoria with Fishback
worked at.
133.
Second, Greenlight explained that Fishback had a glaring issue with the falsity
element of his defamation claims because his complaint contained no plausible allegations that he
ever held a “Head of Macro” title. That was because the only specific allegation Fishback could
muster in support of his claims was the GLG Email. As discussed above, Fishback could not have
reasonably believed that he had the official title of “Head of Macro” based on this stray remark in
a single email. Moreover, Fishback knew that he did not have that title, because he had to hide his
use of it from Greenlight, lest he be corrected. Nevertheless, Fishback naively considered that he
would be able to frame this off-hand remark in a single email as some sort of golden ticket to
obtain a court’s blessing on his use of a made-up and deceptive title.134.
Fishback’s brief in response to Greenlight’s motion revealed the frivolous nature of
his claims. First, Fishback capitulated to Greenlight’s motion to compel him to pursue his claims
in arbitration.
Greenlight also made a number of other legal arguments that are not recounted here. Page 32 135.
Second, Fishback attempted to amend his complaint to fix the particularity issue by
providing more “facts” about the allegedly defamatory statement. As Greenlight had suspected,
the sole basis for the statement was the email that Greenlight had received from Mr. Rehm at
Legacy Wealth Advisors, with inquiries specifically targeted at Fishback’s role as “Head of
Macro.” As noted, this alleged potential investor worked at the same firm as Azoria’s other cofounder. With the benefit of hindsight and context for Fishback’s actions, Greenlight highly doubts
that this inquiry was even a legitimate attempt at diligence, and may have very well been
completely pretextual to serve as the basis of Fishback’s defamation suit.
136.
Third, Fishback did absolutely nothing to substantiate that he allegedly held a
“Head of Macro” title beyond producing the GLG Email. Fishback’s inability to provide additional
support for the title was particularly telling given that Fishback emailed documents to his personal
email accounts on dozens of occasions, but the GLG Email was the only thing that he could point
to as having reflected his alleged title.
137.
In any event, Fishback voluntarily dismissed his claims based on Greenlight’s
arguments that they were subject to arbitration. Fishback has yet to assert these claims.138.
Fishback also filed a completely frivolous complaint with the New York State
Division of Human Rights on October 24, 2023, the day after he filed his defamation complaint.
Fishback claimed that Greenlight had discriminated against him based on his: (a) age (mid-to-late
twenties); and (b) religion (Roman Catholicism). The material facts and allegations in the
complaint were complete fabrications, and while Greenlight will not recount them here, Greenlight
For purposes of providing a complete picture of the ongoing litigation between the parties, Greenlight
notes that it has, however, instituted a separate action against Fishback for recovery on the amounts due and owing
to Greenlight pursuant to certain promissory notes that Fishback had executed in favor of Greenlight in exchange for
loans made by Greenlight to Fishback during his employment. The notes became due and payable, and after
sending two un-responded to letters demanding repayment, Greenlight was forced to resort to legal action. See
Greenlight Capital, Inc. v. Fishback, No. 24-2299 (S.D.N.Y.) at ECF 1 (“Greenlight Notes Complaint”). Page 33 notes that, like the Defamation Complaint, Fishback eventually withdrew this complaint in order
to pursue it in arbitration, which he has to date failed to commence.
139.
Just as Fishback had done with the GLG Email for his “Head of Macro” claim, it
appears that he thought he could re-write reality to create a basis for his frivolous discrimination
claims by emailing a bible verse to the Greenlight employees on his last day at Greenlight. It is
unclear what Fishback thought he would be able to accomplish by doing this, but what is clear is
that he was planning to use the legal system as a tool against Greenlight, with no real understanding
of the concept that legal claims need to be based in fact, and litigants may not invent their own
facts.
140.
Further, other reasons that Fishback has recently publicly given for resigning from
Greenlight in May 2024, as described in more detail herein, flatly contradict his discrimination
claims, which alleged that he had no choice but to leave due to the allegedly hostile work
environment due to his age and religion. Of course, his public accounts for why he left are false,
as well. The true reason was that he deduced he was about to be terminated.
141.
Since withdrawing his frivolous litigation, Fishback continued harassing
Greenlight through other avenues, including threatening to interfere with Greenlight events,
misrepresenting his title and role at Greenlight to the general public at conferences and on other
media platforms, and using Greenlight’s Confidential Information to his advantage.
VII.
Fishback Threatens to Disrupt Greenlight’s 2024 Annual Partner Dinner
142.
On January 10, 2024, Fishback emailed Greenlight and threatened to attend
Greenlight’s 2024 Annual Partner Dinner.
143.
Many of Greenlight’s investors, counterparties, service providers and employee
family members attend Greenlight’s Annual Partner Dinners. Fishback’s threats were obvious Page 34 attempts to intimidate and embarrass Greenlight, and interfere with Greenlight’s relationships with
its investors, counterparties and service providers. When Greenlight notified Fishback that he was
not permitted to attend, he insisted that he would still attempt to do so, or at a minimum, stand
outside the event venue and attempt to communicate with attendees.
144.
Specifically, Fishback threatened to “hand a detailed letter to investors,” that would
prompt them to ask a series of “questions” of Mr. Einhorn during the Annual Partner Dinner.
145.
The content of the letter and the questions that Fishback threatened to provide the
investors contained Greenlight Confidential Information that Fishback had obtained via his
employment with Greenlight, which he agreed not to disclose in the Employment Agreement. In
particular, Fishback wrote in his January 10, 2024 email that he intended to ask the following
question, among others:
What is the status of Greenlight’s macro book — which had its best
year in 2022 and a strong year in 2023 — in light of James
Fishback’s (who was responsible for macro trades) departure in
August 2023? Have these trades been exited or rolled over? Since
no one at Greenlight has experience in macro derivatives modeling,
pricing, or trading, who is currently overseeing the macro book?
146.
Fishback’s statement that no one at Greenlight—including Mr. Einhorn—had any
“experience in macro derivatives modeling, pricing or trading,” is false. And it was clear that
Fishback intended to create the impression that Greenlight was not competent to make macro
investments and to undermine Greenlight’s investors’ confidence in Greenlight’s management, and
Mr. Einhorn in particular. More generally, it was clear that Fishback sought to sow discord
between Greenlight and its investors, and attempted to make investors second-guess their
investments with Greenlight.
147.
After Greenlight sent letters to Fishback through legal channels that detailed the
wrongful nature of his threats, Fishback, ultimately, did not carry out his threat to distribute this Page 35 letter to Greenlight’s investors. Nevertheless, such threats harassed Greenlight as it prepared for
an important corporate event.
Fishback’s behavior reflected his continued intent to harm
Greenlight through misrepresentations and misuse of Confidential Information. Greenlight took
Fishback’s threats seriously and was forced to hire additional security for its event.
VIII. Fishback Continues His Misrepresentations
148.
Since leaving Greenlight, and during all relevant time periods discussed above,
Fishback has been extremely active in seeking out platforms where he could continue to make his
misrepresentations about his role and work at Greenlight. For starters, Fishback has consistently
continued to use the false “Head of Macro” title on his X account, and on the website and LinkedIn
page for Azoria.
149.
Furthermore, in the first half of 2024, Greenlight discovered dozens of instances
where Fishback had held himself out by false titles and roles at conferences, on podcasts and
audio/video interviews, or in connection with other engagements that have led to the reproduction
of his misrepresentations in other formats (like websites and articles). To illustrate, Fishback has
made misrepresentations regarding his role and title at Greenlight in connection with the following
engagements:
Fishback represented that he “ran global macro” at Greenlight in connection with his
appearance at a conference hosted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
on June 15, 2023.
Fishback represented that his role was “macro investing” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on a Bloomberg TV interview on October 4, 2023.
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Global Macro” with Greenlight in
connection with an article written by Brett Haensel and published by “With Intelligence”
on October 31, 2023.
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on the January 10, 2024 episode of the podcast “Chat with Traders.”
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on the January 14, 2024 episode of the podcast “Invested.” Page 36
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance at the Florida Investment Conference held by the University of Florida
Warrington School of Business on February 9, 2024.
Fishback represented that his role was “managing [the] investment fund” at Greenlight in
connection with his appearance on the February 27, 2024 episode of the podcast “The Seth
Leibsohn Show.”
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on the March 7, 2024 episode of the podcast “Saint Louis In Tune.”
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance at conference hosted by the Greenwich Economic Forum on March 14,
2024.
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on the March 25, 2024 episode of the podcast “University of Florida: The
Morning Gator.”
150.
When Greenlight became aware of these engagements, it took steps to notify certain
of the organizations about the misrepresentations Fishback had made in connection with their
conferences, articles, podcasts, etc., including sending letters to certain of the institutions
correcting the record. In response, Fishback doubled-down on his negative publicity campaign.
IX.
Fishback’s May 2024 “Debate” Scheme & Social Media Meltdown
151.
For example, in mid-May 2024, Fishback hoodwinked the unwitting hosts of a
podcast called the “Wall Street Skinny,” that averages over 60,000 downloads per month, into
extending an “invite” to Mr. Einhorn to debate Fishback on their podcast. On May 15, 2024, Mr.
Einhorn and Mr. Roitman received an email from Ms. Jennifer Saarbach, one of the co-hosts of
the podcast, inviting Mr. Einhorn to have a “friendly debate” with Fishback on the podcast
regarding the merits of investing in Tesla, among other things.
152.
Fishback, who was also copied on the email, responded and said: “This is an
excellent idea. Looking forward to having a debate with you, David.” Then, before anyone at
Greenlight could respond, Fishback, in an attempt to garner as much publicity for himself as he Page 37 could,7 immediately took to X, and presented the invitation to the general public as organic and
unsolicited.8 Of course, he made no mention of the fact that he himself had procured the “invite”
by deceiving an innocent third party into proposing the podcast.
153.
Fishback had not been “invited” to do anything, given that Fishback was the one
that approached Ms. Saarbach with the idea to have Mr. Einhorn on the podcast to debate Fishback,
and not the other way around. Fishback also deceived Ms. Saarbach because he knew full-well
that given his repeated efforts to harass Greenlight, and repeated instructions to only communicate
with Greenlight through counsel, Mr. Einhorn would not be interested in engaging in a public
debate with Fishback. But Fishback did not provide any of this relevant background to Ms.
Saarbach, and deceived her into believing that Mr. Einhorn would be receptive to her “invitation,”
and that it would be “an amazing opportunity.”154.
This sham “invite” was just the first step in Fishback’s scheme. Because Fishback
knew that invoking the opportunity to debate Mr. Einhorn on a podcast would generate a lot of
public interest, he used the sham “invite” as a pretext to discuss Mr. Einhorn and Greenlight on
social media. And since Fishback knew Mr. Einhorn had no interest in engaging with him in any
sort of discussion, and would reject the sham “invite”, it appears Fishback planned to chalk that
up as a public-relations “win.”
Indeed, Fishback tagged Mr. Einhorn in his first post, as well as Elon Musk and two other prominent X
accounts, which ultimately garnered more than eight hundred thousand views.
Fishback’s X post that day reads “I’ve been invited to debate Tesla with David Einhorn (my ex-boss),
among other topics. I've been critical of Tesla shorts like @davidein because they fundamentally misunderestimate
[sic] Tesla’s core value driver: autonomy. The path to truth runs through open debate. Let’s do it!”
In fact, in a May 16, 2024 email from Ms. Saarbach to Mr. Einhorn, she apologized to Mr. Einhorn for
proposing a debate between Fishback and Mr. Einhorn. In that email, Ms. Saarbach said “We were completely
unaware of any litigation or animosity between you two — having just met James yesterday — and thought his idea
to bring you on for a debate sounded like an amazing opportunity.” (emphasis added) Page 38 155.
Due to the social media interest Fishback had started around this debate, Mr.
Einhorn was forced to publicly respond to Fishback with an X post of his own, which stated:
Thank you for the offer. Normally, I am happy to debate and
exchange views. However, in order for such a debate to be
meaningful, the person on the other side needs to have some
knowledge about the subject. In this case, I am not aware that you
have ever spent any time analyzing Tesla or its fundamentals - or
really any other equity position for that matter. Certainly not during
the 2 years while you were a macro research analyst at Greenlight.
In any event, even if I were to go against our policy of not publicly
discussing shorts or even confirming we are short, such a debate is
not possible in the face of the ongoing litigation between us.
156.
It appears that Fishback was unhappy with the fact that Mr. Einhorn’s response
derailed his deceptive scheme, as Fishback then launched into a days-long tirade on his X account,
in which he continued to misrepresent his role with Greenlight, take credit for Greenlight’s
performance, and leverage his knowledge of Greenlight’s Confidential Information in violation of
his Employment Agreement. Clearly, he wanted to remain in the public spotlight and generate
press for himself and Azoria. Relevant highlights from his social media junket include:
On May 17 and May 18, Fishback falsely continued to insist in X posts that he held a
“Head of Macro” title and was not a Research Analyst. The May 17 post also appears to
be an early instance of Fishback demanding the release of his “track record” (which is
defined as Confidential Information under his Employment Agreement).
On May 19 and May 20, Fishback continued to demand the release of his track record in
multiple posts:
o In one video post titled, “Dear David Einhorn” on May 19, Fishback complained
that he has not been allowed to compete because he “can’t have [his] title, . . .
can’t describe [his] responsibilities, . . . can’t describe [his] contributions, [and
Greenlight is] not gonna validate even the smallest, smallest, most mini[s]cule
aspect of [his] employment to any investor.”
o This was the same video in which Fishback stated: “I want to compete, I want to
build a business, I want to create something . . . Let’s compete. Let me start
Azoria. Let me start my hedge fund . . . I don’t know what I did, or you think I
did.” Page 39 o In another post, from May 19 Fishback posted a poll that asked viewers whether
they thought Mr. Einhorn should publicly release Fishback’s trading track record
from Greenlight. The responses were 74.9% “Yes” and 25.1% “No.”
o In a third post from May 19, Fishback stated: “This isn’t a dispute about title. It’s
about who is responsible for Greenlight’s insane macro returns. Let’s clear this up
right now, @DavidEin. Publicly release my track record so prospective investors
in my hedge fund can see my tangible contributions.”
o On May 20, Fishback reiterated his sentiments from the day before, stating: “This
isn’t really about a title. It’s about my track record.”
157.
On May 23, 2024, Fishback appeared on an episode of the “Forward Guidance
Podcast,” which was published in video format, and which Fishback reposted on his X account.
In this episode, he repeated and expanded on many of the same misrepresentations that he had
made in his own posts, and he provided an even more in-depth discussion of Greenlight’s
Confidential Information. Relevant statements from Fishback on that podcast appearance include:
Fishback stated ad nauseum that he was the “Head of Macro.” Interestingly, the host, Mr.
Jack Farley asked him “[w]ho told you you were promoted, and how did that happen?”
But Fishback neither explained who told him he was promoted, or how it happened.
Mr. Farley pressed Fishback about documentation for his alleged title, stating “I've been
promoted before, you’ve been promoted before. They typically have a letter that says this
is your new title.” Fishback admitted that there was never any letter, but lied to the host,
stating that “if I had my company email right here with all of the emails, all the examples
I was referred to as the head of macro, that would be, I’d have access to it and I could
share that.”
Fishback doubled-down on this sentiment. Mr. Farley asked Fishback “What are the
instances where Greenlight employees referenced to you as the head of macro? I'm aware
of one instance where that happened in an email. But how common was that? What
evidence do you have in terms of written records?” Fishback replied “Well, if I don't
have my access to my company email, if I did, we could produce them up the wazoo,
right? This was not even in dispute. It's like saying, how often do people call you James?
How often do people call you Fishback? I was the Head of Macro. They called me the
Head of Macro.” When asked “Are there any other written records where other
Greenlight people, i.e., not you, refer to you as that?” Fishback replied “Not that I have
access to, but discovery is going to be fun, Jack. Discovery is going to be a lot of fun.”
(emphasis added). Fishback’s statements were false, since as described above, there is
not a single other email that refers to Fishback as the Head of Macro (except for the four
emails he himself sent). Page 40
Perhaps sensing his own lack of credibility, Fishback deflected from the questions above,
and in the same breath, misappropriated Greenlight’s successes for himself, stating: “I
think the bigger thing here, Jack, is everyone wants to get caught up on a title. And to be
fair, that's exactly how this started. But the bigger question here is who is responsible for
Greenlight’s insane macro performance? The title is part of that, but the crux of this
debate, of this dispute is, is David responsible or am I responsible for what Greenlight
did in macro over those three years?” (emphasis added). The import of this question
is clear. Fishback is wrongfully trying to take credit for Greenlight’s success in managing
its macro investment portfolio.
Fishback went on to once again falsely state that he had “generat[ed] $100 million of
profits” at Greenlight.
Fishback also acknowledged that he could not discuss Confidential Information about his
work at Greenlight when it suited him to deflect difficult questions, but then proceeded
to do so anyway when opportunities in the conversation arose where he felt it would help
his cause to misappropriate Greenlight’s successes and track records.
o Fishback publicly disclosed that Greenlight invested in “interest rate futures tied
to the path of the Fed in 2022” and “inflation swaps” as examples of Greenlight
investments.
o When asked about the types of trades he made, Fishback acknowledged his
confidentiality obligations, but then immediately began discussing trades stating:
“Well, let me just speak in general terms. I don't want to reference anything I did
at Greenlight. But when I think exotic derivatives, I would say second-gen FX
exotic options, second-gen interest rate exotic options, all OTC. I would think
variance swaps. I would think volatility swaps on FX vol, variance on equity index
vol, and the sort.” It appears that Fishback considered there was a loophole to his
Confidentiality Provision if he simply pretended to speak in the hypothetical
sense.
o In addition to disclosing Confidential Information, he again seized on the
opportunity to misappropriate Greenlight’s successes, stating: “[I]t’s pretty clear
that only one person would have been in a position to run that type of complicated
macro book,” referring to himself, and “[i]f I wasn’t running the macro book,
Jack, who on earth was?” The correct answer is clear: Mr. Einhorn.
o Fishback also revealed that he was not simply disclosing Greenlight information
that he was able to recall from memory, but that he actually still possessed
Greenlight’s Confidential Information. He stated: “So, I’m actually staring, I
can’t show you of course, but I’m staring right now at my internal trading
ledger that goes through all of my trades by instrument and the profit and loss on
those trades.” (emphasis added). Later in that same podcast, he stated again “[n]o,
because I am staring right now again, right here at the internal performance
sheet that breaks down all of my trades with a little nice number at the end of it
there.” (emphasis added). This “internal trading ledger” or “internal performance Page 41 sheet” is Greenlight Confidential Information that he took from Greenlight in
violation of his confidentiality obligations and has retained in spite of receiving
two letters from Greenlight demanding that he delete it. His acknowledgments
that he also could not show the interviewer its contents, but could discuss them
verbally demonstrate that Fishback thinks his confidentiality obligations are
subject to whatever loopholes he thinks are clever and benefit him in the moment.
158.
These text and video posts contained dozens of statements in which Fishback
misrepresented his role with Greenlight, wrongfully took credit for Greenlight’s macro investment
performance, and misused his knowledge of Greenlight’s Confidential Information in violation of
his Employment Agreement. These statements defamed Greenlight, misappropriated its success
and reputation, and interfered with Greenlight’s relationships with its investors.
X.
Fishback’s Claims About “Running” Macro at Greenlight and Generating $Million of Profits for Greenlight Are False
159.
In his May 2024 social media blitz, Fishback continued to repeat the
misrepresentations regarding the “Head of Macro” title that he had been making since even before
he left Greenlight. But he went even further with new misrepresentations to back up his fake title,
claiming that he “ran” macro trading, and that he was responsible for $100 million in macro trading
profits, which he called “insane.”
160.
These statements are false because they inaccurately inflate Fishback’s role in
Greenlight’s macro investing success at the expense of others at Greenlight who were really
responsible for Greenlight’s success, namely, Mr. Einhorn.
161.
Fishback’s statements create the false impression that he had discretionary authority
to make investment decisions at Greenlight, which he never had, ever. By the same token, these
statements are harmful to Greenlight because they create the impression that Greenlight’s ability
to make successful macro investments is now non-existent or seriously impaired because Fishback
is no longer at the firm. Page 42 162.
The truth is that Mr. Einhorn, and only Mr. Einhorn, had the discretion and authority
to determine what macro investments went into Greenlight’s portfolio, how they were sized or risk
managed, when profits were taken or when such positions were to be closed out. Fishback had
absolutely no discretion over any of these things.
163.
It is true that because Fishback claimed that he had relationships with various
trading desks on Wall Street, Fishback was responsible, on a non-discretionary basis, to execute
some macro trades for Greenlight that Mr. Einhorn directed. Fishback never had the discretion to
execute any trades on his own.
164.
Therefore, Fishback’s statements that he “ran macro” investing at Greenlight are
absolutely false. Mr. Einhorn was in charge of macro investing at Greenlight during the entirety
of Fishback’s tenure, as he was prior to Fishback’s employment, and as he continues to be to this
day.
165.
In addition, because Fishback had no discretion over Greenlight’s macro
investment portfolio, his claims that he “generated $100 million of profits” for Greenlight, and that
he generated “insane” profits for Greenlight are also false. Any performance or track record with
respect to Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio belongs to the person who had the discretion
over the portfolio and makes the decisions, Mr. Einhorn. Fishback actually generated nothing.
166.
In his public misrepresentations and disclosure of Confidential Information on the
Forward Guidance Podcast, Fishback said “So, I'm actually staring, I can't show you, of course,
but I'm staring right now at my internal trading ledger that goes through all of my trades by
instrument and the profit or loss on those trades. And right at the top, it says Fishback
Performance.” It appears Fishback may be referencing a document that Greenlight prepares as Page 43 part of the formal annual performance review process. This document is not intended to properly
reflect the profits “generated” by or attributed to such research analyst.
167.
While Greenlight tracks the positions research analysts follow, Mr. Einhorn has the
sole decision-making responsibility. For that reason, sometimes an idea will be tracked to a
research analyst’s profit and loss statement despite the analyst even opposing the position.
168.
This actually happened with Fishback.
For instance, when Fishback joined
Greenlight, Greenlight had an existing position in “inflation swaps.” Fishback was assigned to
review Greenlight’s existing macro portfolio. At the time, he believed the market consensus view
that was voiced by the Chair of the Federal Reserve that inflation would be “transitory.” As a
result, Fishback advocated selling Greenlight’s inflation swaps.
169.
Mr. Einhorn was unpersuaded, disagreed with Fishback, and kept the inflation
swaps. In fact, over time Greenlight bought additional inflation swaps. So, Fishback’s analyst
tracking profit and loss statement at Greenlight included the gains on the inflation swaps even
though Fishback was against maintaining the position. His analyst tracking statement also would
not take into account how much Greenlight would have foregone, had Mr. Einhorn listened to
Fishback’s misguided recommendation and sold the inflation swaps.
170.
It is quite dishonest of Fishback to attempt to claim that he was responsible for
Greenlight’s “insane” macro returns which included substantial profits on inflation swaps simply
because those positions are included on the list of investments that were assigned to him, especially
when he was opposed to certain of those positions.
171.
It appears that with respect to Fishback’s statements regarding profits he claims to
have “generated,” he is attempting to take credit for some trades that he was against putting in the
portfolio, and for other investment ideas that were generated by Mr. Einhorn and were assigned to Page 44 Fishback to be researched and monitored. And again, all of the investments he is attempting to
take credit for, like every other Greenlight macro investment, are ones that he never exercised any
discretionary authority over when it came to making actual investment decisions.
172.
In reality, profits and losses are only realized and measurable based on the
discretion exercised by the person with final decision-making authority, which is what makes
Fishback’s public statements so misleading. In fact, Fishback had no “track record” at Greenlight.
XI.
Fishback’s False Claims About the Work Environment at Greenlight
173.
In the period since Fishback resigned, on various occasions, Fishback has also
given multiple reasons, some of which are untrue and defamatory, as to why he resigned from
Greenlight. The purpose of all of these different reasons was to hide the truth: that Fishback was
about to be terminated for his poor performance, and hastily resigned to avoid termination.
174.
In his resignation email to Mr. Einhorn, the only reason for resigning stated by
Fishback was that he was leaving Greenlight to focus on his non-profit, Incubate Debate.
Fishback’s July 31, 2023 resignation email makes no mention of leaving Greenlight (1) due to a
hostile and discriminatory work environment, (2) due to his lack of belief in Greenlight’s
mission/vision, (3) due to Mr. Einhorn’s politics and the direction Greenlight was taking, or (4) to
start a competing hedge fund, all of which he would later state as reasons for resigning.
175.
Fishback’s false statements about the work environment at Greenlight are harmful
to Greenlight’s reputation, ability to attract employees, and have harmed Greenlight’s relationship
with its investors in the process. Specifically, Fishback made public statements in May 2024 that
Greenlight was a politically charged environment, and that he was treated negatively due to his
political views. These statements are absolutely false.
176.
On May 19, 2024, in response to posts about why he left Greenlight, Fishback
posted to X stating that “I don’t stick around if I don’t believe in the mission/vision.” Page 45 177.
Then, in connection with comments Fishback gave to MarketWatch in connection
with its May 20, 2024 article entitled “Greenlight Capital’s clash with a former employee has
captivated the hedge-fund world,” Fishback stated, for the first time ever, that he left Greenlight
due to political reasons. Specifically, the MarketWatch article, which purported to contain
statements from Fishback, reported that: “Fishback—who has previously been pictured with
Donald Trump and appeared on podcasts with ex-Republican contender Vivek Ramaswamy—said
he left Greenlight following disagreements with Einhorn over politics and the direction the hedge
fund was taking.” Fishback re-posted the Marketwatch article on his X account on May 20, 2024.
178.
Fishback’s statements about leaving Greenlight for political reasons were false.
179.
In the May 23, 2024 episode of the Forward Guidance Podcast discussed above,
Fishback elaborated on these falsehoods, stating that his going on Fox News in June of 2023 “was
not well received at Greenlight,” which he clarified was due to political reasons.180.
These statements are also completely false.
181.
Fishback’s statements that political disagreements were his reason for leaving are
clearly contradicted by the circumstances of his departure. For one, Greenlight believes that
Fishback resigned from Greenlight because he deduced that he was about to be terminated. Even
the reasons Fishback gave for leaving Greenlight—first, to run Incubate Debate, and second, to
Fishback explained in the full exchange:
Fishback: “…certainly ruffled some feathers when I went on Fox News and Newsmax and talked about a
young lady from Broward County where I grew up, who was told at a high school debate tournament that she was
not allowed to bring up President Trump in a speech about President Biden's foreign policy. Certainly, that was not
well received at Greenlight.”
Interviewer: “And how did you know that? Did you - you heard it from people? Oh, so-and-so isn't pleased
or it was just a vibe you got.”
Fishback: “Oh, I was told I was told directly.”
Interviewer: “You were told directly. And do you think that those political differences contributed to your
departure?”
Fishback: “I think that they certainly didn't help.” Page 46 run Azoria—undermine his claims that he had left for political reasons, or disagreed with
Greenlight’s “mission.”
182.
Indeed, in Fishback’s resignation email to Mr. Einhorn on July 31, 2023, Fishback
wrote “I would love to continue working with you. If you’d have me, I hope we could return to a
part-time consulting arrangement, where I could share macro trade ideas with you and pursue my
passion with Incubate Debate.”
183.
In a second email to Mr. Einhorn on August 6, 2023, Fishback again wrote “As I
mentioned in my email on Monday, it is my hope to return to my original role as an external
consultant and advise on existing and new macro positions….”
184.
These are not things that Fishback would have communicated to Mr. Einhorn if he
was leaving Greenlight due to political scrutiny or disagreement with its mission or values or due
to a hostile and discriminatory work environment.
185.
Furthermore, it is clear that Fishback is attempting to use politics as a scapegoat for
his failure to meet expectations and perform his duties as a Greenlight employee adequately. For
instance, Fishback’s statements that his appearance on Fox News in 2023 was “not well-received”
at Greenlight for political reasons is clearly contradicted by his communications with Greenlight.
186.
When Greenlight learned that Fishback was pursuing television appearances, Mr.
Einhorn explicitly told Fishback on June 2, 2023 that it “doesn’t bother me that you are on Fox
TV,” but notified Fishback that he thought Fishback’s devotion of time to personal endeavors—
whatever they might have been—were negatively affecting his performance at Greenlight.
187.
Indeed, the issue with Fishback appearing on Fox News had nothing to do with
what he intended to say (which Greenlight frankly knew nothing about), but the fact that it would Page 47 take away from the already little time he was devoting to his Greenlight work. The email
correspondence on this issue is clear: On June 26, 2023, Fishback emailed Mr. Roitman and said:
“I have stepped off for 45 mins to do an interview with Bret Baier
(Fox News) on high school debate. I’ll be live at 10:45AM”
Mr. Roitman’s response email said:
“Well - it's a workday. You ought to be working.
This school debate thing has become a full second job.
We should discuss later this week.”
188.
There is absolutely no mention of politics, Fishback’s political views or anything
political whatsoever in this email exchange or any other exchanges with Greenlight.
189.
As a successful investment firm, Greenlight’s focus is on making decisions that
make economic sense for investors, and political preferences or ideologies that do not bear on the
merits of investment decisions are not a part of Greenlight’s decision-making process. Likewise,
diversity of thought and opinion are welcomed at Greenlight, and individuals with views spanning
the political spectrum are equally inclined and encouraged to succeed at Greenlight.
190.
In fact, Greenlight prefers that politics be kept out of its work entirely, so as not to
disrupt its business. But in this instance, it was Fishback that injected his own outside activities
into the workplace, which he now uses as a convenient scapegoat for his other shortcomings as an
employee.
191.
For these reasons, Fishback’s misrepresentations about politicization are extremely
harmful to Greenlight. They create the false impression that employees are scrutinized based on
their political beliefs, and harm Greenlight’s ability to recruit and hire investment professionals.
192.
In turn, these statements also suggest to investors that Greenlight allows its
investment decisions to be clouded by politics, to the detriment of its investors’ confidence in
Greenlight. To be sure, Fishback said as much in his appearance on the Forward Guidance podcast, Page 48 stating: “[a]gain, this is not about differences in political opinion. This is about, to the extent that
it matters, to what extent are you letting those political differences influence your investing
process….”
193.
Fishback’s motives in attempting to denigrate Greenlight to potential future
employees could not be clearer. For instance, on May 20, 2024, Fishback posted to X: “If you
want get paid what you’re worth, don’t work at Greenlight.” And on June 2, 2024, Fishback quite
childishly changed the bio of his X account to read: “Past: Head of Macro at Greenlight (sucks)”
and “Past: Head of Macro at Greenlight (ew),” as shown below.
194.
Overall, Fishback seems to have accomplished his goal of generating the publicity
he sought. Fishback’s posts themselves were widely viewed, with some receiving more than one
million views. Major media outlets covered the “dispute” that Fishback pretextually procured,
including the New York Times, Business Insider, Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg and Morningstar, and
as a result, his wrongful statements have been published to millions more.
195.
Because these publications have been made without full and accurate information,
they have lent an air of legitimacy to Fishback’s “position” in the dispute, when in reality,
Fishback’s position is built around prevarications, misappropriation of Greenlight’s track record, Page 49 disclosures of Greenlight Confidential Information, and other threats to impose harm on
Greenlight.
196.
The harm of these statements to Greenlight is apparent. Greenlight has already
received inquiries regarding Fishback’s claims from investors, business partners, peers in the
investment community, and the press related to Fishback’s inflated and fictitious role in
Greenlight’s performance. And because Fishback has been relentless and unabashed in his
campaign to publicly use Greenlight Confidential Information and make misrepresentations about
Greenlight’s business and his responsibilities at Greenlight, Fishback’s unlawful statements have
damaged, and pose a continued risk of damaging, Greenlight’s reputation and goodwill with
numerous parties that are vital to Greenlight’s success, including Greenlight’s current and future
investors, business partners, potential employees, and the financial community at large.
197.
Given the wide press coverage that Fishback has generated, and the adage that “bad
news travels fast,” there is no feasible way for Greenlight to identify the parties to whom
Fishback’s statements have been published, such that Greenlight can correct the record and assess
the extent of damage done due to the disclosure of its Confidential Information, and the other
injurious falsehoods that have been spread by Fishback.
198.
Furthermore, Fishback’s recent public statements confirm that he is both still in
physical possession of Greenlight’s Confidential Information, and willing to disclose Confidential
Information in his possession and knowledge, absent injunctive relief.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract – Employment Agreement)
199.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth herein. Page 50 200.
Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Fishback has an undisputed obligation not
to use or disclose Greenlight’s Confidential Information without authorization pursuant to his
Employment Agreement. He likewise had and continues to have an undisputed contractual
obligation to return and not keep Greenlight’s valuable Confidential Information after he decided
to leave Greenlight.
201.
Fishback violated these provisions of the Employment Agreement by accessing and
downloading various Confidential Information to his personal devices during the course of his
employment, as demonstrated by his failure to use Greenlight’s proper information storage
locations, and his forwarding of Confidential Information from his Greenlight email address to his
personal email address during his last two weeks at Greenlight, after he tendered his resignation.
202.
Contrary to his representation to Greenlight that he deleted certain of the
Confidential Information he took from Greenlight (which he failed to confirm in response to letters
from Greenlight’s counsel), Fishback has continued to violate these provisions of the Employment
Agreement by discussing Greenlight’s Confidential Information with third parties on public
platforms, and confirming via public statements that he is still in possession of Greenlight’s
Confidential Information. Specifically, Fishback has recently made multiple statements regarding
Greenlight’s investment positions, strategies, profits, and track record in written and audiovisual
posts to his X account that have all constituted a misuse of Confidential Information.
203.
As a direct consequence of these egregious breaches, Greenlight has, at the very
least, not received the benefit of the bargain associated with the Employment Agreement with
Fishback, and will suffer an even greater harm if Fishback is not enjoined from continuing to
possess, use, and disclose Greenlight’s Confidential Information, further breaching the agreement. Page 51 204.
Greenlight performed its own contractual obligations under the Employment
Agreement.
205.
In the event of a breach or threatened breach of the Employment Agreement,
Greenlight is entitled to an injunction restricting Fishback from committing or continuing the
breach or threatened breach under the Employment Agreement.
206.
As a direct and proximate cause of the Fishback’s breach of contract, Greenlight
has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial damages, including, without limitation, the loss
of economic advantage, and denial of its bargained for exchange, and, accordingly, Greenlight is
entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
207.
Greenlight will continue to be directly and proximately damaged if Fishback is not
immediately and permanently enjoined from further breaching the Employment Agreement and
prohibited from further accessing, using, and disclosing Greenlight’s Confidential Information.
208.
Greenlight has no adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable injury and
damages as a result of Fishback’s actions.
209.
Fishback agreed in the Employment Agreement that a violation of the
Confidentiality Provision would cause irreparable injury to Greenlight, and that Greenlight was
entitled to seek injunctive relief in order to enforce the Confidentiality Provision. See Employment
Agreement § 11 (stating that that “money damages may not be an adequate remedy for any breach
or threatened breach of” the Confidentiality Provision, and that Greenlight “may in its sole
discretion apply to any court of law or equity of competent jurisdiction for specific performance
and/or injunctive relief in order to enforce or prevent any violations of such provisions.”) Page 52 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Competition)
210.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth herein.
211.
Both before and after leaving Greenlight, Fishback has falsely exaggerated his role
at Greenlight and falsely claimed credit for the management and performance of Greenlight’s
macro investment portfolio. Fishback did so to obtain a commercial benefit for himself and the
hedge fund that he created while at Greenlight, Azoria Partners, rather than building his own
business by investing the time and capital necessary to do so.
212.
Fishback has undertaken these misrepresentations in bad faith and with full
knowledge of the falsity of his statements and the wrongfulness of his actions.
213.
By virtue of the foregoing, Fishback has engaged in unfair competition and
continues to compete unfairly with Plaintiffs, seeking to reap what he has not sown.
214.
The acts of unfair competition include Fishback’s public and repeated false claims
that he was promoted to “Head of Macro” at Greenlight, was responsible for managing macro
investing at Greenlight, and was responsible for Greenlight’s macro investing profits.
215.
Fishback lied about his responsibility for managing Greenlight’s investments, and
took credit for performance data that belongs to Greenlight, in connection with his marketing of
Azoria Partners and himself.
216.
In making these false claims, Fishback has misappropriated Plaintiffs’ track record,
goodwill, and reputation. The successful performance of Plaintiffs’ trades, including the macro
investment portfolio which Fishback claims to have managed on his own, were the result of Mr.
Einhorn and Plaintiffs’ labor, skill and resources. Page 53 217.
Fishback’s representations about his role are intended to mislead, and have misled,
investors into thinking that Fishback is responsible for the successful performance of Plaintiffs’
macro investment portfolio.
218.
In addition, Fishback has taken and used for his own devices the Confidential
Information of Greenlight, including information relating to the year-to-date profit and loss of
certain Greenlight interest rate positions and an “internal trading ledger.” Fishback has used this
information to solicit investments from the investing public, including present or potential
investors of Plaintiffs. Fishback has also used this Confidential Information as part of his
campaign to disparage Greenlight and its investment practices, including by discussing his
“internal trading ledger” on the May 23, 2024 Forward Guidance Podcast, in which he impugned
Plaintiffs’ and Einhorn’s abilities to engage in successful macro investing.
219.
Plaintiffs exercised due diligence in attempting to discover the claims against
Fishback asserted herein, including the instant claim.
220.
By virtue of the foregoing, Fishback has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs
to suffer substantial money damages, as well as injury that cannot be calculated, and irreparable
harm to its business, reputation, and goodwill.
221.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their damages suffered as a proximate result of
Fishback’s unfair competition, as alleged herein, in an amount to be proven at trial.
222.
Fishback’s unfair competition has been willful, wanton and malicious.
223.
As a result of Fishback’s willful, wanton, and malicious conduct, Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover punitive damages against Fishback in an amount to be determined at trial. Page 54 224.
In addition, as alleged herein, Fishback’s common law violations have caused and
will continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm that is not adequately remedied at law and that
requires permanent injunctive relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
225.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth herein.
226.
Plaintiffs have existing business relationships with their investors and prospective
investors in that there was a reasonable probability of future economic benefit from Plaintiffs’
relationship with their actual and prospective investors.
227.
Fishback knew of Plaintiffs’ existing business relationships with their actual and
prospective investors and intentionally interfered with them by presenting them with false and
misleading information, as alleged herein.
228.
As alleged herein, Fishback used dishonest, unfair, and improper means to interfere
with Plaintiffs’ relationships with its actual and prospective investors by inflating his perceived
importance and accomplishments at Greenlight to the investing public, in marketing himself and
his new fund, in an attempt to undermine Mr. Einhorn and Plaintiffs’ perceived macro investing
capabilities and interfere with Plaintiffs’ relationship with its investors.
229.
Specifically, Fishback has made demonstrably false statements (including on X
(formerly “Twitter”) and in public appearances) about his employment credentials and
responsibilities—particularly that he was “Head of Macro,” “ran macro” investing at Greenlight,
and that no one else at Greenlight has the ability to run macro trading—which misappropriate
Plaintiffs’ track record. Page 55 230.
Fishback made these false statements knowing that they were accessible to
Plaintiffs’ investors.
231.
These statements by Fishback were knowingly false.
232.
As alleged herein, Fishback has perpetrated a campaign of misrepresentations about
Plaintiffs’ business and misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ Confidential Information which has
damaged and risks continuing to damage Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill with numerous parties
that are vital to Plaintiffs’ success, including their actual and prospective investors, business
partners, potential employment prospects, and the financial community at large.
233.
Plaintiffs exercised due diligence in attempting to discover the claims against
Fishback asserted herein, including the instant claim.
234.
By virtue of the foregoing, Fishback has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs
to suffer substantial money damages, as well as injury that cannot be calculated, and irreparable
harm to its business, reputation, and goodwill.
235.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their damages suffered as a proximate result of
Fishback’s tortious interference with its actual and prospective investors, as alleged herein, in an
amount to be proven at trial.
236.
Fishback’s tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ relationships with their actual and
prospective investors has been willful, wanton and malicious.
237.
As a result of Fishback’s willful, wanton, and malicious conduct, Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover punitive damages against Fishback in an amount to be determined at trial.
238.
In addition, as alleged herein, Fishback’s common law violations have caused and
will continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm that is not adequately remedied at law and that
requires permanent injunctive relief. Page 56 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation and Defamation Per Se)
239.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth herein.
240.
Fishback committed defamation by making public statements on dozens of
occasions detailed herein that he was the “Head of Macro,” that he was responsible for managing
Plaintiffs’ macro trading operations, that he was responsible for Plaintiffs’ macro trading profits,
returns, and performance, and that no one else at Greenlight has the ability to run macro trading.
241.
Fishback also committed defamation by making public statements that he was
subject to scrutiny and criticism for his political views at Greenlight.
242.
These statements were knowingly false and made with malice.
243.
As a result of the false statements made by Fishback, Plaintiffs have been forced to
expend time, money, and other resources in order to ascertain the harmful extent of Fishback’s
actions, and pursue actions to correct his false statements.
244.
In addition, Plaintiffs’ current investors could refrain from investing additional
amounts with Plaintiffs as a result of these false statements, and Fishback’s false statements have
deterred new investors from making investments with Plaintiffs. Fishback’s statements have also
caused damage to Plaintiffs by impairing the Plaintiffs’ ability to recruit potential employees.
245.
Fishback’s statements have also impugned Plaintiffs’ reputation in their profession,
business, and/or trade, and are therefore defamatory per se.
246.
As a direct and foreseeable result of the defamation by Fishback, Plaintiffs are
entitled to an award of all monetary damages that they have incurred and are continuing to incur
in their business as result of such conduct, as well as disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains received
by Fishback resulting from these statements. Page 57 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully requests judgment as follows:
(a)
Entry of a permanent injunction ordering Fishback to refrain from breaching the
terms of his Employment Agreement, and specifically enjoining: (i) Fishback from retaining any
Confidential Information in any form (including computer files, removable media “thumb drives,”
CDs, electronic files on removal media or in any other electronic form, and hard copy documents)
and instead returning all copies of such documents, materials, computer files and other data to
Greenlight, and destroying any such Confidential Information that would remain in Fishback’s
possession even following return (i.e., computer files); and (ii) Fishback from disclosing or
otherwise using Greenlight’s Confidential Information;
(b)
Entry of a permanent injunction ordering Fishback to refrain from making
misrepresentations that are tortious and violative of Plaintiffs’ common law rights under New York
law, including that: (i) Fishback was Greenlight’s Head of Macro; (ii) Fishback was responsible
for managing or running Greenlight’s macro trading activity; and (iii) that Fishback was
responsible for Greenlight’s macro trading success;
(c)
Granting judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on its claims and awarding Plaintiffs an
amount of monetary damages to be determined at trial, including but not limited to damages in an
amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for Fishback’s breach of contract and damages for the
business lost by Plaintiffs as a result of Fishback’s unfair competition and other tortious
misconduct; and
(d)
In the alternative, awarding Plaintiffs nominal damages;
(e)
Awarding Plaintiffs punitive and/or liquidated damages;
(f)
Awarding Plaintiffs nominal damages;
(g)
Awarding Plaintiffs the reasonable costs and disbursements of this action; Page 58 (h)
Awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest on the judgment amount;
(i)
Awarding Plaintiffs any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
New York, New York
Dated: June 25, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
By:
/s/ Stephen M. Baldini
Stephen M. Baldini
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
One Bryant Park
New York, NY Tel: 212-872-Fax: 212-872-sbaldini@akingump.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Greenlight Capital,
Inc. and DME Capital Management, LP
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 58
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Greenlight Capital, Inc., DME Capital
Management, LP,
1:24-cv-4832
No. ______________________
Plaintiffs,
-vs.-
COMPLAINT
James T. Fishback,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Greenlight Capital, Inc. (“Greenlight”) and DME Capital Management, LP
(“DME”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, for their complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendant James T. Fishback
(“Defendant” or “Fishback”) allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
Fishback is a former Greenlight Research Analyst who left Greenlight on August
15, 2023. Correctly deducing that he was about to be terminated for his poor performance and
lack of accountability, Fishback resigned on July 31, 2023. Ever since, he has been on a campaign
to harass, intimidate and defame Greenlight and its co-founder, David Einhorn, by disparaging
them, by falsely inflating his title, responsibilities and contributions to Greenlight, by claiming a
track record that does not belong to him, by commencing complaints and litigation under false
pretenses, and by seeking to interfere with Greenlight’s relationships including with its customers
in violation of Fishback’s legal duties to Greenlight.
PDF Page 3
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 58
2.
In addition to seeking to harm Greenlight, Fishback purports to have formed a
competing fund, Azoria Partners (“Azoria”). Indeed, Fishback lied to Greenlight even before he
resigned, concealing the fact that he formed Azoria as early as July 4, 2023, almost a full month
before he noticed his resignation. Instead of following industry practice and the law, Fishback
began a campaign to attract investors to Azoria by attempting to expropriate portions of
Greenlight’s track record that don’t belong to him, by making false statements about his
responsibilities at Greenlight, and by misappropriating and misusing Greenlight’s Confidential
Information (defined below).
3.
Fishback falsely represented himself to industry contacts and at industry events as
Greenlight’s “Head of Macro” and the person “running macro investing” at Greenlight and
responsible for the “insane” performance of Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio. None of
these things were true. Fishback was hired as a Research Analyst, and was never promoted by
Greenlight to “Head of Macro.” In fact, the title “Head of Macro” has never existed at Greenlight,
and Mr. Einhorn alone, not Fishback, had the sole authority and discretion to manage and run
Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio, and Mr. Einhorn was responsible for its performance.
Fishback made these false statements to misleadingly inflate his perceived abilities and
responsibilities and to take credit for Greenlight’s track record, goodwill, and reputation. Fishback
apparently thought that this would provide him and Azoria with more credibility and help attract
investors at Greenlight’s expense.
4.
After noticing his resignation, during his final few days at Greenlight, Fishback
forwarded Confidential Information from his Greenlight email address to his personal email
addresses in violation of his Employment Agreement (defined below). This stolen information
included Greenlight’s then-current portfolio of investments and documents reflecting Greenlight’s
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 58
macro investing track record, which constitute Greenlight’s extremely sensitive and valuable
proprietary information. This was just the tip of the iceberg, as a later investigation revealed that
Fishback had sent Greenlight Confidential Information to his personal email accounts on dozens
of occasions during his tenure at Greenlight.
5.
Since leaving Greenlight, Fishback has become even bolder in his wrongful
conduct.
6.
First, Fishback has engaged in a publicity blitz including conferences, podcasts,
social media posts and other written publications to publicly use the false “Head of Macro” title,
to falsely state that he “ran macro investing” at Greenlight, and to falsely claim credit for the
performance of Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio. These statements are injurious to and
malign Greenlight by falsely communicating to the world that Fishback, and not Mr. Einhorn, was
responsible for Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio and its performance, when in fact, the
exact opposite is true.
7.
In fact, Fishback had absolutely no discretion whatsoever over what macro
investments went into Greenlight’s portfolio, how they were sized or risk managed, when profits
were taken or when such positions were to be closed out. Fishback had no ability or responsibility
to take or reduce risk.
8.
Fishback knowingly, recklessly, and maliciously made these false claims, while
knowing full well that only Mr. Einhorn actually had such discretion.
9.
Second, in an attempt to intimidate Greenlight from correcting the public record,
Fishback filed a frivolous lawsuit against Greenlight premised on the idea that it was somehow
defamatory for Greenlight to tell the truth to people who inquired, that Fishback did not hold a
3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 4 of 58
“Head of Macro” title.
He voluntarily dismissed his claims in favor of arbitration. To date,
Fishback has not commenced such arbitration, nor has he refiled these claims.
10.
Fishback also used false statements in his frivolous lawsuit as an improper
opportunity to publicly misrepresent his role and performance at Greenlight by falsely claiming
that he was “an outstanding performer at Greenlight,” “excelled in his work,” and
“generated over $100 million in profits for Greenlight from the period of February 2021 to August
2023.”
11.
None of this is true. In fact, Fishback was such a poor performer at Greenlight that
Greenlight had actually decided to terminate him for his lack of productivity and scheduled a
meeting with him to do so, but he abruptly resigned when he deduced that he was about to be
terminated. And, since he had absolutely no authority or discretion whatsoever over Greenlight’s
macro investment portfolio, he was not responsible for generating any profits, let alone “over $100
million” of profits.
12.
Despite the fact that these statements are false, by making statements about
Greenlight’s profitability (albeit using incorrect numbers and falsely attributing the profitability to
himself), Fishback also publicly disclosed Greenlight Confidential Information.
13.
Third, in furtherance of his attempt to harass and intimidate Greenlight, Fishback
also simultaneously filed specious claims with the New York State Division of Human Rights
against Greenlight alleging age discrimination (Fishback was in his late twenties during the
relevant period) and religious discrimination based on his being Roman Catholic. These claims
were all complete fabrications, and Fishback voluntarily dismissed them as well.
14.
Fourth, Fishback continued his campaign to harass and intimidate Greenlight by
threatening to attend and disrupt Greenlight’s 2024 Annual Partner Dinner, which is attended by a
4
PDF Page 6
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 5 of 58
large number of Greenlight’s investors, counterparties and service providers. After being told that
he would not be allowed to attend the event, Fishback threatened to stand outside the event and
hand out letters to the attendees, including Greenlight’s investors. The letters that he threatened to
hand out contained Greenlight Confidential Information and strategies, maliciously and
disingenuously called into question Greenlight’s macro investing abilities (falsely and maliciously
claiming that no one at Greenlight, including Mr. Einhorn, had “experience in macro derivatives
modeling, pricing or trading”), and prompted investors to ask a series of pointed questions to Mr.
Einhorn at the event. Fishback threatened to do this to embarrass and intimidate Greenlight and
interfere with Greenlight’s relationship with its investors. After receiving multiple warnings from
Greenlight and its counsel as to the wrongful nature of his threats, Fishback ultimately did not
attend the event. But he made no secret of his ongoing desire to harm Greenlight.
15.
Fifth, in May 2024, Fishback deceived the unwitting hosts of a podcast into
extending an “invite” to Mr. Einhorn to debate Fishback on the merits of an investment in Tesla,
and used Mr. Einhorn’s rejection of this sham “invite” as a pretext to capture a wide audience and
launch into a days-long social media and podcast tirade against Greenlight and Mr. Einhorn.
16.
In the media blitz that ensued, Fishback took the opportunity he created to continue
spouting lies about his “Head of Macro” title, his role at Greenlight, and his responsibility for
Greenlight’s success, among the other wrongful acts enumerated below. He also publicly disclosed
additional Greenlight Confidential Information. Fishback’s apparent goal in doing this was to
continue publicly perpetuating his false narrative about his performance, success, and
responsibilities at Greenlight in order to lure investors to his purported hedge fund. In particular,
Fishback seemed to think that it would be especially beneficial to him if he could deceive potential
5
PDF Page 7
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 6 of 58
investors into believing that he alone holds the secret and ability to replicate Greenlight’s historical
macro investing success.
17.
Sixth, in his May 2024 social media offensive, Fishback wrongfully misused and
disclosed Greenlight’s Confidential Information in violation of his Employment Agreement. After
Fishback left Greenlight, Fishback refused to return or destroy the Confidential Information that
he had stolen from Greenlight, despite Greenlight’s repeated demands that he do so. In May 2024,
he publicly demonstrated that he still possessed and was willing to misuse Greenlight’s
Confidential Information, when he publicly discussed certain of Greenlight’s macro investments
and the purported performance of Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio.
18.
Seventh, in an effort to cover up the truth and make himself look better to potential
investors in Azoria, Fishback has repeatedly and publicly misrepresented multiple reasons for
leaving Greenlight, including the false and defamatory statement that he left due to political
disagreements with Mr. Einhorn. Fishback apparently did so to hide the fact that he actually left
Greenlight because he had been repeatedly warned about his poor performance, and rightly
deduced that he was about to be terminated. Even then, at the time he resigned, the only reason
he gave was that he was leaving to focus on his work with a non-profit organization.
19.
Fishback concocted his phony story about political disagreements with Mr. Einhorn
in May 2024, almost a full year after he resigned, when it became convenient for him to do so in
an effort to attract more publicity by disparaging Mr. Einhorn to build his own following and to
attract interest in Azoria. His statements that he left because he was scrutinized for his political
views are pure fiction.
20.
In fact, in his resignation email to Mr. Einhorn, Fishback actually said “I would
love to continue working with you,” and also pitched Mr. Einhorn to continue consulting for
6
PDF Page 8
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 7 of 58
Greenlight. This is not something that someone who resigned due to political differences (or due
to a hostile work environment due to age and religious discrimination) would say. Fishback’s false
statements about political disagreements come at Greenlight’s expense as they are injurious to
Greenlight’s reputation as both an employer and investment manager.
21.
Unfortunately for Greenlight, it did not learn until the final weeks and days of
Fishback’s employment that he was using wrongful means to promote himself and harm Greenlight
in the process. And at every juncture since Fishback’s departure, Greenlight has exercised
restraint, and used reasonable, measured responses in order to combat Fishback’s wrongful tactics.
22.
But Fishback has shown no signs that he is going to abide by his legal and
contractual duties to Greenlight, or end his campaign to falsely promote himself at Greenlight’s
expense. On the contrary, Fishback’s most recent conduct shows that he is increasingly desperate
and willing to resort to wrongful tactics now more than ever.
23.
Mr. Fishback’s flippant attitude towards his blatant violations of Greenlight’s rights
is perhaps best demonstrated in a short video Fishback posted on his X account on May 19, 2024
titled “Dear David Einhorn.” In the video, which has been viewed more that one million times,
Fishback attempts to somehow portray himself as the victim, and Mr. Einhorn as a bully, and states:
“I want to compete, I want to build a business, I want to create something . . . Let’s compete. Let
me start Azoria. Let me start my hedge fund . . . I don’t know what I did, or you think I did.”
24.
Fishback’s feigned ignorance towards all of his wrongful conduct demonstrates
exactly why Greenlight both needs to resort to legal avenues and deserves protection from this
Court.
25.
Fishback’s conduct has come at great expense to Greenlight. After invoking
Greenlight and Mr. Einhorn’s name in his most recent social media scheme, Fishback’s posts were
7
PDF Page 9
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 8 of 58
widely viewed, and major media outlets began reporting on the story. Both Fishback’s misuse of
Confidential Information and misrepresentations about his purported responsibility for
Greenlight’s success have caused Greenlight irreparable harm. By falsely conveying that he was
responsible for the management and success of Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio, he has
both wrongfully misappropriated a valuable asset belonging to Greenlight for himself, and harmed
Greenlight by attempting to undermine investor confidence in Greenlight’s capabilities.
26.
The record is clear that Fishback considers Greenlight’s Confidential Information,
goodwill, performance, and reputation to be tools that he can use to both obtain credibility in the
finance world, and generate media buzz in the world at large. That poses two serious problems for
Greenlight.
27.
The first problem is that Fishback has no legal right to do any of these things with
Greenlight’s Confidential Information, goodwill, performance or reputation, and in fact,
Fishback’s actions to date are directly harmful to Greenlight.
28.
The second problem is that Fishback is unlikely to cease his improper conduct in
the absence of a court order. Simply put, Fishback’s behavior demonstrates that he is not concerned
with whether his actions are lawful. He employs dishonest tactics to attain his goals. He has lost
any benefit of the doubt that he is a good faith or rational actor.
PARTIES
29.
Plaintiff Greenlight Capital, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of the state
of Delaware and registered to do business in New York.
30.
Plaintiff DME Capital Management, LP, is a limited partnership formed under the
laws of the state of Delaware and registered to do business in New York.
31.
Upon information and belief, Defendant is an individual and resident of the state of
Florida, residing at 115 Southwest Pinckney Street, Madison, Florida 32340.
8
PDF Page 10
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 9 of 58
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
32.
This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 in value, exclusive of interest and costs,
and is between citizens of different states.
33.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Greenlight and DME are citizens of the states
of Delaware and New York.
34.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant is a citizen of the state of Florida.
35.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant since, among other things, on
information and belief: (i) the Employment Agreement was executed by Greenlight in New York,
Fishback executed and sent the Employment Agreement to Greenlight in New York to become an
employee of Greenlight, the Employment Agreement contained a New York choice of law
provision, and Fishback thereafter visited New York for purposes of the contractual relationship
and his employment with Greenlight; (ii) a substantial portion of Fishback’s misconduct described
herein occurred in New York, or was directed at Plaintiffs in New York causing injury to Plaintiffs
in New York state; and (iii) Fishback transacts business within the state.
36.
Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I.
Greenlight & DME
37.
David Einhorn is the President of Greenlight, which he co-founded in 1996.
Greenlight is a highly respected investment management firm, with billions of dollars in assets
under management. As a successful industry leader, Greenlight has invested substantial time,
money, and resources into developing its own investment methodologies, investment portfolio,
9
PDF Page 11
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 10 of 58
reputation and goodwill with investors, and other highly commercially sensitive and confidential
information that is critical to Greenlight’s success.
38.
To protect this information, Greenlight has implemented several measures,
including information access protocols regarding how employees may access sensitive company
information and requiring all of its employees to agree to confidentiality obligations regarding
certain company information.
39.
DME, like Greenlight, is owned and controlled by Mr. Einhorn.
After a
restructuring on January 1, 2024, DME became the successor in interest of Greenlight’s business.
II.
Greenlight Hires Fishback
40.
On January 27, 2021, Greenlight sent a letter containing an offer of employment to
Fishback (the “Offer Letter”). The Offer Letter stated that the offer of employment was contingent
on Fishback signing the standard employment agreement that was enclosed with the Offer Letter
(the “Employment Agreement”).
41.
Fishback and Greenlight executed the Employment Agreement on February 8,
2021. Section 5 of the Employment Agreement (the “Confidentiality Provision”),1 contains
multiple subparagraphs that imposed obligations on Fishback with respect to the use and handling
of certain information (defined therein as “Confidential Information”) that Fishback would have
access to as a Greenlight employee. The subparagraphs of the Confidentiality Provision in section
5 state:
(i) To assist Employee in the performance of his duties, the Company agrees to
provide to Employee special training and information regarding the Company’s
business methods and access to certain Confidential Information (as defined below)
and materials belonging to the Company, its affiliates, and to third parties, including
but not limited to investors and prospective investors of the Company who have
1
Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is entitled “Confidential Information,” but is referred to herein
as the “Confidentiality Provision,” to avoid confusion with the defined term “Confidential Information” that appears
in Section 5 and that is also discussed herein.
10
PDF Page 12
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 11 of 58
furnished such information and materials to the Company under obligations of
confidentiality.
(ii) Except as expressly permitted by the Company in writing, Employee agrees that
he shall not (either during his employment by the Company or thereafter) disclose
to any person not connected with the Company or use for his own benefit or for the
benefit of any person other than the Company any Confidential Information either
disclosed to or developed by the Employee during his employment by the
Company. For purposes of this agreement, “Confidential Information” shall
include, but not be limited to, all investor lists, prospective investor lists,
investments (except where publicly disclosed), investment methodologies,
methods of dealing, investment track records, investment recommendations,
investment performance, performance records of any individual investment
position, performance records of any Company fund, performance records of
Employee, information that supports the performance record of any Company
fund or of Employee, and other confidential business information related to the
conduct of the Company's business and/or the business of any of the Company’s
affiliates.
(iii) In the event of termination of Employees employment with the Company,
Employee agrees to deliver promptly to the Company all Confidential Information,
equipment, documents, notes, reports, files, books, correspondence, lists, and other
written or graphic reports and the like relating to the Company's or any affiliate's
business which are or have been in his possession or under his control.
(iv) Nothing contained in this Agreement supersedes, conflicts with, or otherwise
alters the Employee's rights or obligations under existing statute, law, rule,
regulation or order relating to the reporting to applicable governmental authority of
a violation of any law, rule, or regulation as required by law.
Employment Agreement § 5 (emphasis added).
42.
Thus, Fishback agreed, in recognition of the highly commercially sensitive and
confidential nature of the information received in the course of his employment, that he would not
disclose to any third party or use for his or others’ benefit such Confidential Information and that
he would return and not retain any Confidential Information following the termination of his
employment. Per the plain terms of the Confidentiality Provision, the Confidential Information
subject to these obligations includes, among other things, information regarding current or
11
PDF Page 13
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 12 of 58
potential Greenlight investments, Greenlight’s investment and fund performance, Greenlight’s
track record, and Greenlight’s investment methodologies and recommendations.
III.
Fishback Consistently Underperforms as an Employee at Greenlight
43.
Throughout the course of Fishback’s employment at Greenlight, Fishback failed to
meet even minimal performance expectations. Fishback consistently failed to devote appropriate
time and effort to his Greenlight responsibilities and was notified repeatedly that his work product
was unacceptably delayed, undeveloped, or otherwise incomplete. Furthermore, he also showed
a lack of accountability, and even dishonesty, about his performance issues and his outside personal
ventures.
A. Fishback’s Performance Issues: 2021-2022
44.
As early as October 2021, Mr. Einhorn informed Fishback that he was on formal
notice and that he was on “thin ice,” due in part to errors and carelessness in his performance. In
Fishback’s formal year-end performance assessment for 2021, Greenlight also communicated to
him that his failure “to make himself more valuable to the firm” had “left himself with a smaller
margin for error.”2
45.
Fishback’s substandard performance continued into 2022. When these performance
issues were raised to Fishback, Greenlight came to understand that he would avoid accountability
through dishonesty. For instance, in the first quarter of 2022, Fishback made careless errors in his
own work on multiple occasions, but attempted to blame others in order to avoid personal
accountability.
2
This statement refers to the fact that when he was hired, Fishback promised to do a sensitivity analysis of
Greenlight’s existing portfolio to a variety of macro variables, which he never did, and the fact that Greenlight had
offered to train Fishback as a junior trader, which he abandoned less than six weeks into training. His failure to do
the sensitivity analysis, and his declining the opportunity to be a junior trader, were some of the reasons Fishback
failed to make himself more valuable to the firm.
12
PDF Page 14
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 13 of 58
46.
For example, in January 2022, at Mr. Einhorn’s direction, Greenlight executed a
macro derivative transaction, which Fishback executed with a counterparty. In accordance with
Greenlight policy, Fishback sent an email with the details of the trade to Greenlight’s operations
staff informing them that the required initial margin for the transaction was $1.4 million. In reality,
however, the counterparty had requested $4.1 million of initial margin.
47.
When Greenlight’s operations staff asked Fishback about the discrepancy, he did
not have a ready answer. As it turned out, the parties had changed the notional amount of the trade
and Fishback had either neglected to recalculate, or perhaps to even reconsider, the impact of such
change on the amount of the required initial margin.
48.
Greenlight’s operations staff alerted senior management, including Mr. Einhorn,
about the issue, as the operations staff was becoming concerned with the repeated unreliability of
Fishback’s work product.
49.
When Mr. Einhorn confronted Fishback about this particular issue, Fishback did
not take ownership of his mistake, instead replying that it was “a bank error.” In fact, there was
no bank error. After the notional amount of the trade had changed, the counterparty had correctly
recalculated the amount of the required initial margin of $4.1 million, and Fishback failed to do
so. The error was Fishback’s by his failing to recalculate the required initial margin.
50.
Throughout 2022, Greenlight provided Fishback with clear notice that he was not
meeting expectations. For instance, on April 19, 2022, Mr. Einhorn expressed disappointment
with the lack of substance in an assignment that Fishback had taken six days to complete and
expressed to him that he thought Fishback’s “work, as shown, could be replicated in about 30
minutes.”
13
PDF Page 15
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 14 of 58
51.
In Fishback’s formal year-end performance assessment for 2022, Greenlight also
communicated to him that “[w]hen projects are assigned by David to James, they often don’t
get evaluated in a timely manner and sometimes not at all” (emphasis added). The assessment
continued that: “[t]o summarize: we aren’t sure whether the lack of work is because (a) James
disagrees with the topic, so he refuses to indulge David’s request in a passive/aggressive way, (b)
James isn’t capable of investigating these types of questions, or (c) James isn’t committing enough
hours to his work at Greenlight.”
B. Potential Gift-Matching Incident
52.
Greenlight also became concerned with Fishback’s preoccupation with his personal
outside endeavors, and his ability to be forthcoming and honest with Greenlight, toward the end
of 2022.
53.
For example, Greenlight has an annual gift-matching program in which it matches
eligible contributions made by its employees to charitable organizations, up to $10,000. On
November 28, 2022, Fishback requested that Greenlight match a $10,000 donation he made to an
organization that he created and ran called the Macrovoyant Foundation (“Macrovoyant”).
54.
As part of the gift matching program, Greenlight has fairly standard requirements
for this type of program that participating employees must provide proof of their own donation
and wire information for the organization. Greenlight asked Fishback to comply with these
requirements for his matching gift request for Macrovoyant. Greenlight became suspicious when
Fishback was unable to provide proof of his own donation or other information verifying that
Greenlight’s donation would be received and handled legitimately by Macrovoyant.
55.
When Fishback made his initial request on November 28, the only “proof” that he
provided for his donation was a picture of an uncashed personal check made out to “Macrovoyant
14
PDF Page 16
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 15 of 58
Foundation.” He also requested that Greenlight provide the matching donation in the form of a
check as opposed to a wire transfer, but did not explain why that was necessary.
56.
Greenlight informed Fishback the next day that a picture of an uncashed check was
not sufficient proof of his donation, and asked Fishback to provide a tax receipt for the donation.
Approximately one month later, on December 27, 2022, Fishback provided an unsigned letter, not
on letterhead, purporting to be a receipt from Macrovoyant. He again reiterated the need for a
check, asking “[c]ould you kindly make the match in check form? The foundation is in the process
of moving bank accounts so wire won’t work.” Greenlight informed Fishback that the unsigned
letter was not sufficient proof of his donation.
57.
Another month later, on January 27, 2023, Fishback sent Greenlight an email with:
(i) a screenshot purporting to show a wire transfer, and (ii) a screenshot purporting to show a Bank
of America account, with each screenshot showing a $10,000 transfer to “Macrovoyant
Foundation” on November 29, 2022.
However, there was no donor information in either
screenshot and Fishback’s name did not appear in either screenshot. Greenlight informed Fishback
yet again that this was not a sufficient proof of payment.
58.
On January 30, 2023, Greenlight followed up again via email to inquire about proof
of his donation, and Fishback responded by saying that he was not authorized to share the
organization’s bank statements without approval from the Board, but sent another screenshot,
purporting to be from the website Givebutter, which showed a donation in his name to
“Macrovoyant Foundation Corporation” on January 30, 2023.
59.
Greenlight ultimately decided not to accommodate Fishback’s request given that he
was unable to provide credible information to Greenlight about his donation in a timely manner,
15
PDF Page 17
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 16 of 58
why Greenlight’s payment needed to be in check form, and his overall lack of transparency
surrounding his requests since November 28.
60.
Fishback’s insistence that Greenlight provide a check as opposed to a wire because
the foundation was “moving bank accounts” did not make any sense, considering that an
organization would typically open a new account before closing an old one.
61.
The request for a check on November 28 was ever more curious, because Fishback
later purported to show Greenlight a wire from himself to Macrovoyant of $10,000 on November
29, just one day after he had requested the payment from Greenlight to Macrovoyant be in check
form.
62.
Furthermore, his inability to provide any bona fide proof of payment—like a tax
receipt—from Macrovoyant, the charity that he ran, raised questions as to the legitimacy of his
own donation.
63.
Finally, it made no sense that Fishback hid behind the charity’s Board, considering
he was the founder of the charity.
64.
Overall, Greenlight found that Fishback’s manner of requesting $10,000 from
Greenlight for his own personal charity and his inability to provide required basic information
raised questions as to whether Fishback was demonstrating appropriate personal integrity with
Greenlight about the gift-match.
C. Performance Issues Continue Into 2023
65.
Fishback’s performance issues persisted into 2023 and were compounded because
he was devoting increasing time and effort to his personal endeavors, like Macrovoyant Foundation
(also known as Incubate Debate), which focused on high-school debate, at the expense of
performing his job as a full-time Greenlight Research Analyst.
16
PDF Page 18
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 17 of 58
66.
For example, on April 13, 2023, Greenlight learned for the first time Fishback was
managing five full-time employees at Incubate Debate. Fishback had never disclosed this to
Greenlight, in violation of its internal compliance and conflicts policies that require disclosure of
such outside engagements.
67.
At approximately the same time, senior management at Greenlight communicated
to Fishback that it was clear that his involvement with his personal endeavors, like Incubate
Debate, was detrimental to his performance at Greenlight.
68.
Fishback acknowledged that Greenlight’s criticisms were valid, and apologized
and communicated that he would resolve the issue by hiring an executive director for Incubate
Debate, so that he would not need to be involved in the organization’s day-to-day activities.
69.
Despite his representations, Fishback remained preoccupied with his personal
endeavors and his performance did not improve. On May 29, 2023, Mr. Einhorn emailed Fishback
and pointed out that Fishback had failed to provide a daily email summary of macro events that
Mr. Einhorn had requested and stated that it appeared Fishback had ignored his direction.
70.
Mr. Fishback replied, apologizing and stating “David, you are not missing anything.
This is my fault.”
71.
Mr. Einhorn responded as follows:
I’m adding [Daniel Roitman], so that we don’t have a game of telephone. If the
below is correct, then you can’t tell him that you have taken what was said at your
review to heart and made great progress. We genuinely doubt you are working
as a full time employee. We don’t have punch clocks and you work remotely. So,
the burden of proof is on you. And, it looks like your side gig is cutting into
Greenlight. In fact, it really doesn’t appear to me that you are doing any
meaningful amount of work for Greenlight. If I didn’t like you, I’d fire you now.
But, you are on very, very thin ice. I don’t intend to continue to have this argument
with you. (emphasis added).
17
PDF Page 19
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 18 of 58
72.
On June 2, 2023, at a scheduled research meeting with Fishback, Mr. Einhorn
expressed his continued dissatisfaction with Fishback’s work.
Mr. Einhorn stated that
organizational confidence in Fishback was extremely low and reminded Fishback that he “was on
thin ice.”
73.
Fishback acknowledged that he had let the firm down, needed to do a better job at
prioritizing tasks that he had promised Greenlight that he would do, and apologized, again.
74.
Greenlight’s patience with Fishback finally ran out in late July 2023. On July 26,
2023, Fishback submitted a draft essay (the “Jelly Donut Assignment”) to Mr. Einhorn that he had
been assigned to write in February 2023. After many delays, the draft essay was finally supposed
to be delivered on July 24, 2023. Despite it being two days beyond the most recent deadline, and
despite Fishback have having had months to complete the Jelly Donut Assignment, the draft essay
appeared to reflect only a few hours of effort.
75.
After receiving the Jelly Donut Assignment on July 26, and determining that it did
not reflect a substantial amount of work, Greenlight reviewed its computer system and discovered
that Fishback had almost no work files saved on Greenlight’s network drive, and had engaged in
very little activity on Greenlight’s computer system. This effectively confirmed that Fishback had
not put any serious amount of work into the Jelly Donut Assignment, as he would have needed to
have been active in the network drive during the process in order to do so.
76.
Moreover, since this review revealed that virtually none of Fishback’s work had
been saved on Greenlight’s network drive, Fishback must either have been saving his Greenlight
work files—which would have included a vast amount of Confidential Information—on his
personal devices, in direct violation of Greenlight’s policies and his Employment Agreement, or
he did not do any meaningful work during his entire tenure at Greenlight.
18
PDF Page 20
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 19 of 58
77.
After this review, Greenlight finally decided to terminate Fishback for his lack of
productivity, failure to perform his duties, and violations of company policies
78.
On Monday, July 31, 2023, Mr. Einhorn’s assistant emailed Fishback at 10:48 a.m.
to inform him that Mr. Einhorn wanted to schedule a Zoom call for noon that day. The unstated
purpose of that Zoom call was to terminate Fishback’s employment.
79.
In response, at 10:56 a.m., Fishback requested that the Zoom call be rescheduled to
3:30 p.m. allegedly due to his travel schedule. Then, a mere 27 minutes after delaying the Zoom
call, Fishback tendered his resignation to Greenlight via email, and provided notice that his last
day of employment would be on August 15, 2023.
80.
Greenlight understood at that time that Fishback likely deduced that the purpose of
the Zoom call with Mr. Einhorn was to terminate him, so Fishback resigned first to avoid the
embarrassment of termination.
81.
In Fishback’s resignation email to Mr. Einhorn on July 31, 2023, Fishback stated
that the reason he was leaving was to focus on his non-profit, Incubate Debate. Fishback wrote
that “I would love to continue working with you. If you’d have me, I hope we could return to a
part-time consulting arrangement, where I could share macro trade ideas with you and pursue my
passion with Incubate Debate.” (emphasis added).
82.
In a second email to Mr. Einhorn on August 6, 2023, Fishback reiterated those
sentiments, stating: “[a]s I mentioned in my email on Monday, it is my hope to return to my
original role as an external consultant and advise on existing and new macro positions….”
(emphasis added).
83.
As further discussed herein, however, Fishback had other motives at that time that
Greenlight has since discovered, but were not yet apparent to Greenlight at that time.
19
PDF Page 21
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 20 of 58
IV.
Greenlight Discovers Fishback’s Other Misconduct on the Eve of His Departure
84.
After Fishback resigned, Greenlight learned that before he left Greenlight, Fishback
had taken concrete steps to form Azoria. He had also secretly violated his duties to Greenlight.
85.
Specifically: (1) without Greenlight’s knowledge or permission, and in order to
build his credibility before launching Azoria, Fishback had participated (or registered to
participate) in at least five industry events and used false credentials at four of these events to
artificially inflate his importance at Greenlight; and (2) in violation of his Employment Agreement
and Greenlight’s compliance policies, Fishback surreptitiously sent Greenlight’s Confidential
Information to his personal email accounts in his final days at Greenlight, as he had also secretly
done dozens of times before during his tenure at Greenlight.
86.
Fishback’s plan to start a competing business built off the wrongful
misappropriation of Greenlight’s reputation and Confidential Information began to be revealed to
Greenlight when Greenlight learned that Fishback had clandestinely signed up for the 2023 Citi
Equities Conference which was being held in Miami Beach on September 12-14, 2023 (the “Citi
Conference”).
A. Fishback’s Misrepresentations Regarding His Greenlight Title
87.
On August 1, 2023, Greenlight received an email with information about the Citi
Conference. The email showed that Fishback was scheduled to speak as Greenlight’s “Head of
Macro.” This email was the first time Greenlight learned that Fishback was making
misrepresentations about his work with Greenlight, and his title, to third parties.
88.
In fact, since Fishback did not request Greenlight’s permission to speak at the Citi
Conference, as he was required to do so by Greenlight policy, prior to receiving the August 1 email,
Greenlight did not know that Fishback had even registered as a speaker for the Citi Conference,
let alone used the fictitious “Head of Macro” title.
20
PDF Page 22
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 21 of 58
89.
In response, Greenlight performed a search of other Fishback engagements and
learned that, unbeknown to Greenlight, Fishback had participated in at least four prior speaking
engagements where he used a false title or credentials, and that he had used similar variations on
the “Head of Macro” title at two of them.3 Fishback did not request or receive the required
preapproval from Greenlight for any of these events, and in at least two instances, also used the
Greenlight name and logo without permission.
90.
This fabricated job title “Head of Macro” has never existed at Greenlight, and
Fishback’s job title at the time of all of these engagements, as it had always been, was “Research
Analyst.” More concerning to Greenlight is that Fishback chose the false title “Head of Macro”
in order to convey to the public, and potential Azoria investors, that he had greater importance to
Greenlight’s operations than the title “Research Analyst” would imply, and to improperly suggest
that he was responsible for the management and performance of Greenlight’s macro investment
portfolio.
B. Fishback Created Azoria, a Competing Hedge Fund, While at Greenlight, and Lied to
Greenlight About It
91.
When Greenlight confronted Fishback about his planned appearance at the Citi
Conference, he was forced to reveal for the first time that he had started Azoria, the new business
he had formed while still employed as a Research Analyst at Greenlight.
3
Those other instances include (1) the University of Florida CAPS – Career and Academic Peer Mentors
podcast released on February 9, 2022, where Fishback stated that he “helped run global macro investing at
Greenlight;” (2) Columbia Alpha Partners “Breaking Into Hedge Funds with James Fishback & Greenlight Capital”
event on October 11, 2022, where Fishback used the title “Head of Macroeconomic Research”; (3) the ALPFA at
University of Florida’s “Speaking on Asset Management, Inflation And the Fed” event on March 22, 2023, where
Fishback used the title “Head of Global Macroeconomic Investing;” and (4) a Foundation for Individual Rights and
Expression Conference on June 15, 2023 where Fishback stated that he “ran global macro at Greenlight Capital.”
Fishback also made an unauthorized presentation on March 10, 2022, in connection with Florida State University
that was advertised as the “Greenlight Capital Speaker Series with James Fishback.” It is unclear what title he used
at this event.
21
PDF Page 23
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 22 of 58
92.
After Greenlight received the email with the Citi Conference agenda, Greenlight
requested Fishback to provide contact information for the Citi Conference, so that Greenlight could
correct the agenda. Fishback did not provide the requested contact information, but instead, on
August 9, 2023, sent Greenlight’s Chief Operating Officer a revised agenda for the Citi Conference
which now listed Fishback as “Founder & CIO, Azoria Partners,” which is the first time that
Greenlight learned about the existence of Azoria. In his August 9 email, Fishback said “[t]hey’ve
updated it and removed my Greenlight affiliation, replacing it with the name of the consulting LLC
I’m starting to service a few clients.” This was false.
93.
In fact, Azoria is not a “consulting LLC,” but the hedge fund that Fishback currently
purports to operate, is actively promoting on social media, and that Fishback has explicitly stated
he intends to use to directly compete with Greenlight. Fishback had conveniently failed to mention
the existence of Azoria to Greenlight at any point in time before August 9, 2023, and it was
curiously missing from his resignation email in which he stated he was leaving to focus on his
non-profit, Incubate Debate.
94.
Indeed, Greenlight subsequently learned that the domain name for the Azoria
Partners’ website, which is still in use today, was registered on July 4, 2023, almost a full month
before Fishback noticed his resignation from Greenlight.
95.
When Greenlight eventually discovered that Fishback formed Azoria as a
competing hedge fund, Fishback’s motivation for use of the fabricated “Head of Macro” title
became much clearer. By using the false title, Fishback was (and is) holding himself out to the
public as responsible for Greenlight’s macro investment successes and track record. In turn, it
appears that Fishback believed he could garner credibility and resources for his own competing
ventures by doing so unbeknown to Greenlight.
22
PDF Page 24
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 23 of 58
C. Fishback Transferred Greenlight’s Confidential Information to Himself
96.
Greenlight naturally became more suspicious of Fishback’s motives following its
discoveries above. Greenlight discovered that on August 15, 2023, Fishback’s final day at
Greenlight, Fishback forwarded an “End of Day Package” that had been circulated internally at
Greenlight on July 28, 2023, and which contained, among other things, a full list of the investments
in Greenlight’s portfolio, information pertaining to investment performance, and investment track
records, to his personal non-Greenlight email address from his work email account.
97.
Such information undoubtedly constituted Confidential Information, as that term is
defined in the Employment Agreement. Because Fishback forwarded this information to himself
surreptitiously, without authorization, and with no legitimate purpose related to his employment
with Greenlight, this constituted a clear violation of the Confidentiality Provision in his
Employment Agreement.
98.
Further investigation showed that this was not the only occasion on which Fishback
had personally retained Confidential Information in violation of the Confidentiality Provision. On
August 11, 2023, Fishback also surreptitiously forwarded to his personal email account
Confidential Information relating to the year-to-date profit and loss of certain Greenlight interest
rate positions.
99.
While Greenlight is still attempting to ascertain the full extent of the Confidential
Information that Fishback took, it seems that dozens of times during his tenure at Greenlight,
Fishback surreptitiously emailed information from his Greenlight email account to one of his
several personal email accounts, including information about specific Greenlight macro
investments, and their performance.
23
PDF Page 25
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 24 of 58
100.
As discussed in further detail infra, however, Greenlight has learned through
Fishback’s recent public statements that he has made since leaving Greenlight that he still has
possession of Confidential Information that he had stolen during his tenure at Greenlight.
D. Greenlight Warns Fishback Against Misconduct and Fishback Reveals His Scheme
101.
On August 15, 2023, immediately after Greenlight became aware that Fishback sent
Confidential Information to his personal email account, Greenlight’s Chief Operating Officer, Mr.
Daniel Roitman, emailed Fishback notifying him that Greenlight detected his attempt to
misappropriate Confidential Information and demanding that he delete the information. Mr.
Roitman also warned Fishback against using inaccurate titles.
102.
In response, Fishback replied “Deleted. I thought I was the ‘head of macro.’”
103.
Greenlight has serious reasons to doubt that Fishback ever deleted any of the
Confidential Information he took from Greenlight. As further discussed below, Greenlight’s
counsel has sent multiple letters to Fishback asking him to confirm the deletion of all Greenlight
Confidential Information in his possession, which he has never replied to, and, just recently, on
May 23, 2024, he publicly confirmed that he is still in possession of at least one of Greenlight’s
documents containing Confidential Information.
104.
Furthermore, Fishback knew full well that he had never held any other job title at
Greenlight besides Research Analyst. But in a disingenuous and transparent revelation of the
scheme he had planned to carry out, he attached to his response a screenshot of an email he had
also curiously forwarded from his work email to his personal email account that day.
105.
The screenshot was an email from Mr. Roitman to Ms. Heather Robinson, a Senior
Manager of the GLG Group on May 11, 2023 (the “GLG Email”). The email thread began with
Ms. Robinson contacting Mr. Roitman to promote a “Remote Roundtable” meeting her firm was
hosting, and offering to “save [] a seat” for Greenlight. In response, Mr. Roitman asked Ms.
24
PDF Page 26
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 25 of 58
Robinson to sign Fishback up for the meeting, which was relevant to Fishback’s duties as a
Research Analyst focused on macro positions, and introduced Fishback onto the email thread by
informally remarking that he is “our head of macro.”
106.
To be clear, Mr. Roitman was not stating that this was his formal title, as is obvious
from the context and lack of a proper noun. The Remote Roundtable was a GLG “Signature Event”
available only to senior executives (only Mr. Einhorn and Mr. Roitman were invited), and Mr.
Roitman exaggerated his description of Fishback so that GLG would allow him to attend the event.
107.
Fishback knew that his title at Greenlight was “Research Analyst.” But it was clear
from Fishback’s defiant response to Mr. Roitman’s email that he intended to leverage an informal
remark in a single stray email as “support” for a fictious formal title that he alone created.
108.
Fishback’s emailed statement to Mr. Roitman on August 15 that he “thought” his
title was “head of macro” was completely disingenuous, and in retrospect, just the beginning of
the misrepresentations that Fishback intended to make to the public and potential investors. It is
also quite telling that on August 15 Fishback stole two emails from Greenlight’s system: the full
portfolio of investments and the GLG Email.
109.
Fishback had no reasonable basis to believe that he was ever given the title or
promoted to “Head of Macro.” Contrary to Fishback’s public statements, promotions are a big
deal at Greenlight, and people are absolutely not “given new responsibilities pretty much on a
whim” at Greenlight as he has since claimed publicly. His statement as such is outrageous and
defamatory.
110.
If Fishback had been promoted, his change of title would have been widely
communicated by Greenlight and documented in its records. There have been eighteen actual
25
PDF Page 27
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 26 of 58
promotions at Greenlight since 2011, and all eighteen were communicated to Greenlight’s
investors in its quarterly letters.
111.
Fishback’s alleged “promotion” to “Head of Macro” was not communicated to
investors in one of Greenlight’s quarterly letters because the alleged “promotion” never actually
occurred. Fishback’s public claims that he was promoted are abject lies. Indeed, the only title that
Greenlight ever included in its materials including organizational charts and firm brochures for
Fishback was “Research Analyst.”
112.
To be certain, Greenlight reviewed its own records, and found that the only time
anyone at Greenlight (other than Fishback himself) used the term “head of macro,” was the single
stray comment in the GLG Email from Mr. Roitman to Ms. Robinson.
113.
Fishback’s claim that he genuinely “thought” this was his official title is patently
unreasonable and defies common sense and the facts.
114.
The record is clear. Fishback was never promoted to “Head of Macro” and the title
“Head of Macro” has never existed at Greenlight.
115.
In fact, Fishback himself demonstrated that he knew that he never held the title
“Head of Macro.” When Greenlight reviewed its records, it identified that Fishback had used the
fabricated “Head of Macro” title in his emails exactly four times. Three instances were when
Fishback tried to set up a meeting with John Williams, the Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York.4 In an email on May 15, 2023 (which he re-forwarded to Mr. Williams again on
June 7 and 24) to Mr. Williams, Fishback used an email signature block that read “Head of Macro,
Greenlight Capital, Inc.”
4
The fourth email is when Fishback registered for the Citi Conference and provided a short bio with the
title of “head of global macro.”
26
PDF Page 28
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 27 of 58
116.
Quite tellingly, after sending this email on May 15, 2023, Fishback changed his
email signature block back to his normal signature block that did not say “Head of Macro.” If
Fishback genuinely thought he had the title “Head of Macro,” why would he change his signature
block to eliminate the title? Importantly, no one from Greenlight was copied on any of the emails
to Mr. Williams.
117.
V.
Simply put, this behavior demonstrates Fishback’s fraudulent intent.
Fishback’s Continued Title Misrepresentations Shortly After Leaving Greenlight
and Greenlight’s Demand Letters
118.
Considered alongside Fishback’s other actions during his employment with
Greenlight, it is clear that by using made up titles that aggrandized his role at Greenlight, Fishback
overstated his importance to Greenlight’s success, in order to create publicity and build credibility
for Azoria.
119.
This much was confirmed shortly after Fishback’s employment with Greenlight
terminated. Specifically, on September 27, 2023, Mr. Roitman received the following email from
a Mr. Jeffery Rehm, whose email signature indicates that he was the “Director of Investments” at
Legacy Wealth Advisors, in Miami, Florida:
I hope this finds you well. My firm is looking at James Fishback's
new hedge fund (Azoria Partners) and I'm hoping to confirm some
information with you.
1. Was James employed at Greenlight from February 2021 until his
resignation in August 2023?
2. What were James’ responsibilities as Greenlight's Head of Macro?
3. In aggregate over his employment, did James’ investments
contribute positively to Greenlight's returns?
120.
After receiving this inquiry, Mr. Roitman emailed Fishback on September 28, 2023
and wrote “I want you to correct the record or I will be forced to do so.” Fishback ultimately
27
PDF Page 29
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 28 of 58
replied “Do whatever you need to do.” Consequently, Mr. Roitman replied Mr. Rehm on
September 29, with the following email:
Sorry for the late reply but I was on a business trip.
1. James was employed at Greenlight as a Research Analyst from
February 2021 through August 2023.
2. He was not Head of Macro. We do not have Heads at Greenlight
as David Einhorn makes all portfolio management decisions. James
responsibilities were to suggest macro trading ideas to David that
could be standalone good risk-adjusted bets where we had a variant
perception, or that could hedge areas of the portfolio where we
wanted to minimize our exposure to macro factors.
3. We generally do not comment on an individual analyst’s ideas as
David has trading discretion over the portfolio.
121.
Like other elements of Fishback’s relationship with Greenlight, even this innocuous
looking reference check is suspicious. Mr. Rehm is apparently an employee of Legacy Wealth
Advisors. The Azoria website states that “Azoria is an investment manager founded and led by
James T. Fishback and Asaf H. Abramovich.” Mr. Abramovich’s LinkedIn profile and regulatory
filings show that he worked for Legacy Wealth Advisors immediately before co-founding Azoria.
A review of Fishback’s communications on Greenlight servers also revealed that Fishback knew
Mr. Rehm before leaving Greenlight. After Mr. Roitman responded to Mr. Rehm, Mr. Rehm never
followed-up on his inquiry.
122.
However, as discussed in further detail below, Mr. Rehm’s email exchange with Mr.
Roitman made its way to Fishback and wound up forming the sole basis for a frivolous defamation
suit that Fishback filed against Greenlight. Fishback claimed in his suit against Greenlight that
Mr. Rehm would have invested $5 million in Azoria, but for Mr. Roitman’s email, which allegedly
cast doubt on Fishback’s credibility.
28
PDF Page 30
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 29 of 58
123.
Putting together Fishback’s ties to Mr. Rehm, Mr. Rehm’s targeted questions
towards the “Head of Macro” title, the lack of any follow-up from Mr. Rehm on the diligence for
an alleged $5 million investment, the fact that Mr. Rehm and Mr. Roitman’s email exchange made
its way to Fishback (after he alleged that it made him out to be a liar to Mr. Rehm), and that
Fishback seemed unconcerned that Mr. Roitman was going to tell Mr. Rehm (a supposedly
important potential investor) that Fishback was not the Head of Macro, Greenlight has a reasonable
basis to suspect that Fishback manufactured this “reference check,” especially since he has recently
shown that he is willing to deceive others into communicating with Greenlight to create pretext
for his schemes, as discussed below in connection with the “Wall Street Skinny” podcast inquiry
Greenlight received in May 2024.
124.
In any event, Fishback had not heeded Greenlight’s demands about not using fake
titles. Indeed, a review of Fishback’s X (formerly Twitter) account, his own personal website,
fshbck.com, and the website and LinkedIn page for Azoria around the same time showed that
Fishback was holding himself out as Greenlight’s former “Head of Macro.”
125.
As a result, on October 11, 2023, Greenlight sent Fishback a letter (the “First
Demand Letter”) that, inter alia, demanded that Fishback cease holding himself out as having held
any title other the title he actually held at Greenlight, which was “Research Analyst.” Greenlight
clearly communicated that Fishback’s representations to the contrary that he was “Head of Macro”
were false. The letter demanded that Fishback return (or destroy, as applicable), Greenlight’s
Confidential Information in his possession or control.
126.
On October 19, 2023, Greenlight sent Fishback a second letter (the “Second
Demand Letter”) reiterating the demands made in the First Demand Letter, and documenting
certain of Fishback’s efforts which showed that he had received the First Demand Letter, but was
29
PDF Page 31
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 30 of 58
trying to obfuscate that fact in an attempt to deny that he had received notice. The Second Demand
Letter observed that within twenty-four hours of sending the First Demand Letter, the contact email
address that was posted on the website and LinkedIn account for Azoria Partners had been changed
from james@azoriapartners.com to sunset@azoriapartners.com.
127.
Fishback has never responded to either of these letters. Instead, and as further
detailed herein, he has consistently attempted to harass Greenlight by initiating frivolous litigation
against Greenlight, continuing to publicly promote himself using false statements regarding his
title and role with Greenlight, and misusing his knowledge of Greenlight’s Confidential
Information in order to remain in the public eye and benefit from Greenlight’s notoriety and
reputation, harming Greenlight in the process.
VI.
Fishback Attempts to Silence Greenlight with Frivolous Litigation
128.
It has become apparent that Fishback considered misrepresenting his title and role
with Greenlight and his alleged responsibility for Greenlight’s macro investment performance to
be a valuable tool for self-promotion.
129.
In an effort to legitimatize his misrepresentations, Fishback initiated frivolous
litigation against Greenlight, in the hopes that it would give him leverage to use his fake title and
to intimidate Greenlight from publicly objecting.
130.
Fishback filed a complaint against Greenlight on October 23, 2023, in New York
State Supreme Court (the “Defamation Complaint”). The Defamation Complaint frivolously
alleged that Greenlight defamed him by denying that he had held the “Head of Macro” title.
131.
In response, Greenlight moved for alternative forms of relief. First, Greenlight
invoked the arbitration provision in Fishback’s Employment Agreement, so as to not waive the
right to arbitration. In the alternative, Greenlight moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
30
PDF Page 32
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 31 of 58
adequately state claims for defamation, citing several fundamental legal issues with Fishback’s
claims.
132.
First, Greenlight pointed out that Fishback failed to identify when, how, or to whom
Greenlight had made the alleged defamatory statements, as he was required to do under New York
law. Instead, Fishback vaguely alleged that Greenlight’s Mr. Roitman had told “a partner and
director of investments at a preeminent family office” at some unspecified point in time that he
“was not Head of Macro.” Fishback notably failed to identify this person as Mr. Rehm, who
worked at Legacy Wealth Advisors, the same firm that the co-founder of Azoria with Fishback
worked at.
133.
Second, Greenlight explained that Fishback had a glaring issue with the falsity
element of his defamation claims because his complaint contained no plausible allegations that he
ever held a “Head of Macro” title. That was because the only specific allegation Fishback could
muster in support of his claims was the GLG Email. As discussed above, Fishback could not have
reasonably believed that he had the official title of “Head of Macro” based on this stray remark in
a single email. Moreover, Fishback knew that he did not have that title, because he had to hide his
use of it from Greenlight, lest he be corrected. Nevertheless, Fishback naively considered that he
would be able to frame this off-hand remark in a single email as some sort of golden ticket to
obtain a court’s blessing on his use of a made-up and deceptive title.5
134.
Fishback’s brief in response to Greenlight’s motion revealed the frivolous nature of
his claims. First, Fishback capitulated to Greenlight’s motion to compel him to pursue his claims
in arbitration.
5
Greenlight also made a number of other legal arguments that are not recounted here.
31
PDF Page 33
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 32 of 58
135.
Second, Fishback attempted to amend his complaint to fix the particularity issue by
providing more “facts” about the allegedly defamatory statement. As Greenlight had suspected,
the sole basis for the statement was the email that Greenlight had received from Mr. Rehm at
Legacy Wealth Advisors, with inquiries specifically targeted at Fishback’s role as “Head of
Macro.” As noted, this alleged potential investor worked at the same firm as Azoria’s other cofounder. With the benefit of hindsight and context for Fishback’s actions, Greenlight highly doubts
that this inquiry was even a legitimate attempt at diligence, and may have very well been
completely pretextual to serve as the basis of Fishback’s defamation suit.
136.
Third, Fishback did absolutely nothing to substantiate that he allegedly held a
“Head of Macro” title beyond producing the GLG Email. Fishback’s inability to provide additional
support for the title was particularly telling given that Fishback emailed documents to his personal
email accounts on dozens of occasions, but the GLG Email was the only thing that he could point
to as having reflected his alleged title.
137.
In any event, Fishback voluntarily dismissed his claims based on Greenlight’s
arguments that they were subject to arbitration. Fishback has yet to assert these claims.6
138.
Fishback also filed a completely frivolous complaint with the New York State
Division of Human Rights on October 24, 2023, the day after he filed his defamation complaint.
Fishback claimed that Greenlight had discriminated against him based on his: (a) age (mid-to-late
twenties); and (b) religion (Roman Catholicism). The material facts and allegations in the
complaint were complete fabrications, and while Greenlight will not recount them here, Greenlight
6
For purposes of providing a complete picture of the ongoing litigation between the parties, Greenlight
notes that it has, however, instituted a separate action against Fishback for recovery on the amounts due and owing
to Greenlight pursuant to certain promissory notes that Fishback had executed in favor of Greenlight in exchange for
loans made by Greenlight to Fishback during his employment. The notes became due and payable, and after
sending two un-responded to letters demanding repayment, Greenlight was forced to resort to legal action. See
Greenlight Capital, Inc. v. Fishback, No. 24-2299 (S.D.N.Y.) at ECF 1 (“Greenlight Notes Complaint”).
32
PDF Page 34
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 33 of 58
notes that, like the Defamation Complaint, Fishback eventually withdrew this complaint in order
to pursue it in arbitration, which he has to date failed to commence.
139.
Just as Fishback had done with the GLG Email for his “Head of Macro” claim, it
appears that he thought he could re-write reality to create a basis for his frivolous discrimination
claims by emailing a bible verse to the Greenlight employees on his last day at Greenlight. It is
unclear what Fishback thought he would be able to accomplish by doing this, but what is clear is
that he was planning to use the legal system as a tool against Greenlight, with no real understanding
of the concept that legal claims need to be based in fact, and litigants may not invent their own
facts.
140.
Further, other reasons that Fishback has recently publicly given for resigning from
Greenlight in May 2024, as described in more detail herein, flatly contradict his discrimination
claims, which alleged that he had no choice but to leave due to the allegedly hostile work
environment due to his age and religion. Of course, his public accounts for why he left are false,
as well. The true reason was that he deduced he was about to be terminated.
141.
Since withdrawing his frivolous litigation, Fishback continued harassing
Greenlight through other avenues, including threatening to interfere with Greenlight events,
misrepresenting his title and role at Greenlight to the general public at conferences and on other
media platforms, and using Greenlight’s Confidential Information to his advantage.
VII.
Fishback Threatens to Disrupt Greenlight’s 2024 Annual Partner Dinner
142.
On January 10, 2024, Fishback emailed Greenlight and threatened to attend
Greenlight’s 2024 Annual Partner Dinner.
143.
Many of Greenlight’s investors, counterparties, service providers and employee
family members attend Greenlight’s Annual Partner Dinners. Fishback’s threats were obvious
33
PDF Page 35
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 34 of 58
attempts to intimidate and embarrass Greenlight, and interfere with Greenlight’s relationships with
its investors, counterparties and service providers. When Greenlight notified Fishback that he was
not permitted to attend, he insisted that he would still attempt to do so, or at a minimum, stand
outside the event venue and attempt to communicate with attendees.
144.
Specifically, Fishback threatened to “hand a detailed letter to investors,” that would
prompt them to ask a series of “questions” of Mr. Einhorn during the Annual Partner Dinner.
145.
The content of the letter and the questions that Fishback threatened to provide the
investors contained Greenlight Confidential Information that Fishback had obtained via his
employment with Greenlight, which he agreed not to disclose in the Employment Agreement. In
particular, Fishback wrote in his January 10, 2024 email that he intended to ask the following
question, among others:
What is the status of Greenlight’s macro book — which had its best
year in 2022 and a strong year in 2023 — in light of James
Fishback’s (who was responsible for macro trades) departure in
August 2023? Have these trades been exited or rolled over? Since
no one at Greenlight has experience in macro derivatives modeling,
pricing, or trading, who is currently overseeing the macro book?
146.
Fishback’s statement that no one at Greenlight—including Mr. Einhorn—had any
“experience in macro derivatives modeling, pricing or trading,” is false. And it was clear that
Fishback intended to create the impression that Greenlight was not competent to make macro
investments and to undermine Greenlight’s investors’ confidence in Greenlight’s management, and
Mr. Einhorn in particular. More generally, it was clear that Fishback sought to sow discord
between Greenlight and its investors, and attempted to make investors second-guess their
investments with Greenlight.
147.
After Greenlight sent letters to Fishback through legal channels that detailed the
wrongful nature of his threats, Fishback, ultimately, did not carry out his threat to distribute this
34
PDF Page 36
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 35 of 58
letter to Greenlight’s investors. Nevertheless, such threats harassed Greenlight as it prepared for
an important corporate event.
Fishback’s behavior reflected his continued intent to harm
Greenlight through misrepresentations and misuse of Confidential Information. Greenlight took
Fishback’s threats seriously and was forced to hire additional security for its event.
VIII. Fishback Continues His Misrepresentations
148.
Since leaving Greenlight, and during all relevant time periods discussed above,
Fishback has been extremely active in seeking out platforms where he could continue to make his
misrepresentations about his role and work at Greenlight. For starters, Fishback has consistently
continued to use the false “Head of Macro” title on his X account, and on the website and LinkedIn
page for Azoria.
149.
Furthermore, in the first half of 2024, Greenlight discovered dozens of instances
where Fishback had held himself out by false titles and roles at conferences, on podcasts and
audio/video interviews, or in connection with other engagements that have led to the reproduction
of his misrepresentations in other formats (like websites and articles). To illustrate, Fishback has
made misrepresentations regarding his role and title at Greenlight in connection with the following
engagements:
Fishback represented that he “ran global macro” at Greenlight in connection with his
appearance at a conference hosted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
on June 15, 2023.
Fishback represented that his role was “macro investing” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on a Bloomberg TV interview on October 4, 2023.
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Global Macro” with Greenlight in
connection with an article written by Brett Haensel and published by “With Intelligence”
on October 31, 2023.
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on the January 10, 2024 episode of the podcast “Chat with Traders.”
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on the January 14, 2024 episode of the podcast “Invested.”
35
PDF Page 37
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 36 of 58
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance at the Florida Investment Conference held by the University of Florida
Warrington School of Business on February 9, 2024.
Fishback represented that his role was “managing [the] investment fund” at Greenlight in
connection with his appearance on the February 27, 2024 episode of the podcast “The Seth
Leibsohn Show.”
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on the March 7, 2024 episode of the podcast “Saint Louis In Tune.”
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance at conference hosted by the Greenwich Economic Forum on March 14,
2024.
Fishback represented that his role was “Head of Macro” at Greenlight in connection with
his appearance on the March 25, 2024 episode of the podcast “University of Florida: The
Morning Gator.”
150.
When Greenlight became aware of these engagements, it took steps to notify certain
of the organizations about the misrepresentations Fishback had made in connection with their
conferences, articles, podcasts, etc., including sending letters to certain of the institutions
correcting the record. In response, Fishback doubled-down on his negative publicity campaign.
IX.
Fishback’s May 2024 “Debate” Scheme & Social Media Meltdown
151.
For example, in mid-May 2024, Fishback hoodwinked the unwitting hosts of a
podcast called the “Wall Street Skinny,” that averages over 60,000 downloads per month, into
extending an “invite” to Mr. Einhorn to debate Fishback on their podcast. On May 15, 2024, Mr.
Einhorn and Mr. Roitman received an email from Ms. Jennifer Saarbach, one of the co-hosts of
the podcast, inviting Mr. Einhorn to have a “friendly debate” with Fishback on the podcast
regarding the merits of investing in Tesla, among other things.
152.
Fishback, who was also copied on the email, responded and said: “This is an
excellent idea. Looking forward to having a debate with you, David.” Then, before anyone at
Greenlight could respond, Fishback, in an attempt to garner as much publicity for himself as he
36
PDF Page 38
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 37 of 58
could,7 immediately took to X, and presented the invitation to the general public as organic and
unsolicited.8 Of course, he made no mention of the fact that he himself had procured the “invite”
by deceiving an innocent third party into proposing the podcast.
153.
Fishback had not been “invited” to do anything, given that Fishback was the one
that approached Ms. Saarbach with the idea to have Mr. Einhorn on the podcast to debate Fishback,
and not the other way around. Fishback also deceived Ms. Saarbach because he knew full-well
that given his repeated efforts to harass Greenlight, and repeated instructions to only communicate
with Greenlight through counsel, Mr. Einhorn would not be interested in engaging in a public
debate with Fishback. But Fishback did not provide any of this relevant background to Ms.
Saarbach, and deceived her into believing that Mr. Einhorn would be receptive to her “invitation,”
and that it would be “an amazing opportunity.”9
154.
This sham “invite” was just the first step in Fishback’s scheme. Because Fishback
knew that invoking the opportunity to debate Mr. Einhorn on a podcast would generate a lot of
public interest, he used the sham “invite” as a pretext to discuss Mr. Einhorn and Greenlight on
social media. And since Fishback knew Mr. Einhorn had no interest in engaging with him in any
sort of discussion, and would reject the sham “invite”, it appears Fishback planned to chalk that
up as a public-relations “win.”
7
Indeed, Fishback tagged Mr. Einhorn in his first post, as well as Elon Musk and two other prominent X
accounts, which ultimately garnered more than eight hundred thousand views.
8
Fishback’s X post that day reads “I’ve been invited to debate Tesla with David Einhorn (my ex-boss),
among other topics. I've been critical of Tesla shorts like @davidein because they fundamentally misunderestimate
[sic] Tesla’s core value driver: autonomy. The path to truth runs through open debate. Let’s do it!”
9
In fact, in a May 16, 2024 email from Ms. Saarbach to Mr. Einhorn, she apologized to Mr. Einhorn for
proposing a debate between Fishback and Mr. Einhorn. In that email, Ms. Saarbach said “We were completely
unaware of any litigation or animosity between you two — having just met James yesterday — and thought his idea
to bring you on for a debate sounded like an amazing opportunity.” (emphasis added)
37
PDF Page 39
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 38 of 58
155.
Due to the social media interest Fishback had started around this debate, Mr.
Einhorn was forced to publicly respond to Fishback with an X post of his own, which stated:
Thank you for the offer. Normally, I am happy to debate and
exchange views. However, in order for such a debate to be
meaningful, the person on the other side needs to have some
knowledge about the subject. In this case, I am not aware that you
have ever spent any time analyzing Tesla or its fundamentals - or
really any other equity position for that matter. Certainly not during
the 2 years while you were a macro research analyst at Greenlight.
In any event, even if I were to go against our policy of not publicly
discussing shorts or even confirming we are short, such a debate is
not possible in the face of the ongoing litigation between us.
156.
It appears that Fishback was unhappy with the fact that Mr. Einhorn’s response
derailed his deceptive scheme, as Fishback then launched into a days-long tirade on his X account,
in which he continued to misrepresent his role with Greenlight, take credit for Greenlight’s
performance, and leverage his knowledge of Greenlight’s Confidential Information in violation of
his Employment Agreement. Clearly, he wanted to remain in the public spotlight and generate
press for himself and Azoria. Relevant highlights from his social media junket include:
On May 17 and May 18, Fishback falsely continued to insist in X posts that he held a
“Head of Macro” title and was not a Research Analyst. The May 17 post also appears to
be an early instance of Fishback demanding the release of his “track record” (which is
defined as Confidential Information under his Employment Agreement).
On May 19 and May 20, Fishback continued to demand the release of his track record in
multiple posts:
o In one video post titled, “Dear David Einhorn” on May 19, Fishback complained
that he has not been allowed to compete because he “can’t have [his] title, . . .
can’t describe [his] responsibilities, . . . can’t describe [his] contributions, [and
Greenlight is] not gonna validate even the smallest, smallest, most mini[s]cule
aspect of [his] employment to any investor.”
o This was the same video in which Fishback stated: “I want to compete, I want to
build a business, I want to create something . . . Let’s compete. Let me start
Azoria. Let me start my hedge fund . . . I don’t know what I did, or you think I
did.”
38
PDF Page 40
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 39 of 58
o In another post, from May 19 Fishback posted a poll that asked viewers whether
they thought Mr. Einhorn should publicly release Fishback’s trading track record
from Greenlight. The responses were 74.9% “Yes” and 25.1% “No.”
o In a third post from May 19, Fishback stated: “This isn’t a dispute about title. It’s
about who is responsible for Greenlight’s insane macro returns. Let’s clear this up
right now, @DavidEin. Publicly release my track record so prospective investors
in my hedge fund can see my tangible contributions.”
o On May 20, Fishback reiterated his sentiments from the day before, stating: “This
isn’t really about a title. It’s about my track record.”
157.
On May 23, 2024, Fishback appeared on an episode of the “Forward Guidance
Podcast,” which was published in video format, and which Fishback reposted on his X account.
In this episode, he repeated and expanded on many of the same misrepresentations that he had
made in his own posts, and he provided an even more in-depth discussion of Greenlight’s
Confidential Information. Relevant statements from Fishback on that podcast appearance include:
Fishback stated ad nauseum that he was the “Head of Macro.” Interestingly, the host, Mr.
Jack Farley asked him “[w]ho told you you were promoted, and how did that happen?”
But Fishback neither explained who told him he was promoted, or how it happened.
Mr. Farley pressed Fishback about documentation for his alleged title, stating “I've been
promoted before, you’ve been promoted before. They typically have a letter that says this
is your new title.” Fishback admitted that there was never any letter, but lied to the host,
stating that “if I had my company email right here with all of the emails, all the examples
I was referred to as the head of macro, that would be, I’d have access to it and I could
share that.”
Fishback doubled-down on this sentiment. Mr. Farley asked Fishback “What are the
instances where Greenlight employees referenced to you as the head of macro? I'm aware
of one instance where that happened in an email. But how common was that? What
evidence do you have in terms of written records?” Fishback replied “Well, if I don't
have my access to my company email, if I did, we could produce them up the wazoo,
right? This was not even in dispute. It's like saying, how often do people call you James?
How often do people call you Fishback? I was the Head of Macro. They called me the
Head of Macro.” When asked “Are there any other written records where other
Greenlight people, i.e., not you, refer to you as that?” Fishback replied “Not that I have
access to, but discovery is going to be fun, Jack. Discovery is going to be a lot of fun.”
(emphasis added). Fishback’s statements were false, since as described above, there is
not a single other email that refers to Fishback as the Head of Macro (except for the four
emails he himself sent).
39
PDF Page 41
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 40 of 58
Perhaps sensing his own lack of credibility, Fishback deflected from the questions above,
and in the same breath, misappropriated Greenlight’s successes for himself, stating: “I
think the bigger thing here, Jack, is everyone wants to get caught up on a title. And to be
fair, that's exactly how this started. But the bigger question here is who is responsible for
Greenlight’s insane macro performance? The title is part of that, but the crux of this
debate, of this dispute is, is David responsible or am I responsible for what Greenlight
did in macro over those three years?” (emphasis added). The import of this question
is clear. Fishback is wrongfully trying to take credit for Greenlight’s success in managing
its macro investment portfolio.
Fishback went on to once again falsely state that he had “generat[ed] $100 million of
profits” at Greenlight.
Fishback also acknowledged that he could not discuss Confidential Information about his
work at Greenlight when it suited him to deflect difficult questions, but then proceeded
to do so anyway when opportunities in the conversation arose where he felt it would help
his cause to misappropriate Greenlight’s successes and track records.
o Fishback publicly disclosed that Greenlight invested in “interest rate futures tied
to the path of the Fed in 2022” and “inflation swaps” as examples of Greenlight
investments.
o When asked about the types of trades he made, Fishback acknowledged his
confidentiality obligations, but then immediately began discussing trades stating:
“Well, let me just speak in general terms. I don't want to reference anything I did
at Greenlight. But when I think exotic derivatives, I would say second-gen FX
exotic options, second-gen interest rate exotic options, all OTC. I would think
variance swaps. I would think volatility swaps on FX vol, variance on equity index
vol, and the sort.” It appears that Fishback considered there was a loophole to his
Confidentiality Provision if he simply pretended to speak in the hypothetical
sense.
o In addition to disclosing Confidential Information, he again seized on the
opportunity to misappropriate Greenlight’s successes, stating: “[I]t’s pretty clear
that only one person would have been in a position to run that type of complicated
macro book,” referring to himself, and “[i]f I wasn’t running the macro book,
Jack, who on earth was?” The correct answer is clear: Mr. Einhorn.
o Fishback also revealed that he was not simply disclosing Greenlight information
that he was able to recall from memory, but that he actually still possessed
Greenlight’s Confidential Information. He stated: “So, I’m actually staring, I
can’t show you of course, but I’m staring right now at my internal trading
ledger that goes through all of my trades by instrument and the profit and loss on
those trades.” (emphasis added). Later in that same podcast, he stated again “[n]o,
because I am staring right now again, right here at the internal performance
sheet that breaks down all of my trades with a little nice number at the end of it
there.” (emphasis added). This “internal trading ledger” or “internal performance
40
PDF Page 42
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 41 of 58
sheet” is Greenlight Confidential Information that he took from Greenlight in
violation of his confidentiality obligations and has retained in spite of receiving
two letters from Greenlight demanding that he delete it. His acknowledgments
that he also could not show the interviewer its contents, but could discuss them
verbally demonstrate that Fishback thinks his confidentiality obligations are
subject to whatever loopholes he thinks are clever and benefit him in the moment.
158.
These text and video posts contained dozens of statements in which Fishback
misrepresented his role with Greenlight, wrongfully took credit for Greenlight’s macro investment
performance, and misused his knowledge of Greenlight’s Confidential Information in violation of
his Employment Agreement. These statements defamed Greenlight, misappropriated its success
and reputation, and interfered with Greenlight’s relationships with its investors.
X.
Fishback’s Claims About “Running” Macro at Greenlight and Generating $100
Million of Profits for Greenlight Are False
159.
In his May 2024 social media blitz, Fishback continued to repeat the
misrepresentations regarding the “Head of Macro” title that he had been making since even before
he left Greenlight. But he went even further with new misrepresentations to back up his fake title,
claiming that he “ran” macro trading, and that he was responsible for $100 million in macro trading
profits, which he called “insane.”
160.
These statements are false because they inaccurately inflate Fishback’s role in
Greenlight’s macro investing success at the expense of others at Greenlight who were really
responsible for Greenlight’s success, namely, Mr. Einhorn.
161.
Fishback’s statements create the false impression that he had discretionary authority
to make investment decisions at Greenlight, which he never had, ever. By the same token, these
statements are harmful to Greenlight because they create the impression that Greenlight’s ability
to make successful macro investments is now non-existent or seriously impaired because Fishback
is no longer at the firm.
41
PDF Page 43
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 42 of 58
162.
The truth is that Mr. Einhorn, and only Mr. Einhorn, had the discretion and authority
to determine what macro investments went into Greenlight’s portfolio, how they were sized or risk
managed, when profits were taken or when such positions were to be closed out. Fishback had
absolutely no discretion over any of these things.
163.
It is true that because Fishback claimed that he had relationships with various
trading desks on Wall Street, Fishback was responsible, on a non-discretionary basis, to execute
some macro trades for Greenlight that Mr. Einhorn directed. Fishback never had the discretion to
execute any trades on his own.
164.
Therefore, Fishback’s statements that he “ran macro” investing at Greenlight are
absolutely false. Mr. Einhorn was in charge of macro investing at Greenlight during the entirety
of Fishback’s tenure, as he was prior to Fishback’s employment, and as he continues to be to this
day.
165.
In addition, because Fishback had no discretion over Greenlight’s macro
investment portfolio, his claims that he “generated $100 million of profits” for Greenlight, and that
he generated “insane” profits for Greenlight are also false. Any performance or track record with
respect to Greenlight’s macro investment portfolio belongs to the person who had the discretion
over the portfolio and makes the decisions, Mr. Einhorn. Fishback actually generated nothing.
166.
In his public misrepresentations and disclosure of Confidential Information on the
Forward Guidance Podcast, Fishback said “So, I'm actually staring, I can't show you, of course,
but I'm staring right now at my internal trading ledger that goes through all of my trades by
instrument and the profit or loss on those trades. And right at the top, it says Fishback
Performance.” It appears Fishback may be referencing a document that Greenlight prepares as
42
PDF Page 44
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 43 of 58
part of the formal annual performance review process. This document is not intended to properly
reflect the profits “generated” by or attributed to such research analyst.
167.
While Greenlight tracks the positions research analysts follow, Mr. Einhorn has the
sole decision-making responsibility. For that reason, sometimes an idea will be tracked to a
research analyst’s profit and loss statement despite the analyst even opposing the position.
168.
This actually happened with Fishback.
For instance, when Fishback joined
Greenlight, Greenlight had an existing position in “inflation swaps.” Fishback was assigned to
review Greenlight’s existing macro portfolio. At the time, he believed the market consensus view
that was voiced by the Chair of the Federal Reserve that inflation would be “transitory.” As a
result, Fishback advocated selling Greenlight’s inflation swaps.
169.
Mr. Einhorn was unpersuaded, disagreed with Fishback, and kept the inflation
swaps. In fact, over time Greenlight bought additional inflation swaps. So, Fishback’s analyst
tracking profit and loss statement at Greenlight included the gains on the inflation swaps even
though Fishback was against maintaining the position. His analyst tracking statement also would
not take into account how much Greenlight would have foregone, had Mr. Einhorn listened to
Fishback’s misguided recommendation and sold the inflation swaps.
170.
It is quite dishonest of Fishback to attempt to claim that he was responsible for
Greenlight’s “insane” macro returns which included substantial profits on inflation swaps simply
because those positions are included on the list of investments that were assigned to him, especially
when he was opposed to certain of those positions.
171.
It appears that with respect to Fishback’s statements regarding profits he claims to
have “generated,” he is attempting to take credit for some trades that he was against putting in the
portfolio, and for other investment ideas that were generated by Mr. Einhorn and were assigned to
43
PDF Page 45
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 44 of 58
Fishback to be researched and monitored. And again, all of the investments he is attempting to
take credit for, like every other Greenlight macro investment, are ones that he never exercised any
discretionary authority over when it came to making actual investment decisions.
172.
In reality, profits and losses are only realized and measurable based on the
discretion exercised by the person with final decision-making authority, which is what makes
Fishback’s public statements so misleading. In fact, Fishback had no “track record” at Greenlight.
XI.
Fishback’s False Claims About the Work Environment at Greenlight
173.
In the period since Fishback resigned, on various occasions, Fishback has also
given multiple reasons, some of which are untrue and defamatory, as to why he resigned from
Greenlight. The purpose of all of these different reasons was to hide the truth: that Fishback was
about to be terminated for his poor performance, and hastily resigned to avoid termination.
174.
In his resignation email to Mr. Einhorn, the only reason for resigning stated by
Fishback was that he was leaving Greenlight to focus on his non-profit, Incubate Debate.
Fishback’s July 31, 2023 resignation email makes no mention of leaving Greenlight (1) due to a
hostile and discriminatory work environment, (2) due to his lack of belief in Greenlight’s
mission/vision, (3) due to Mr. Einhorn’s politics and the direction Greenlight was taking, or (4) to
start a competing hedge fund, all of which he would later state as reasons for resigning.
175.
Fishback’s false statements about the work environment at Greenlight are harmful
to Greenlight’s reputation, ability to attract employees, and have harmed Greenlight’s relationship
with its investors in the process. Specifically, Fishback made public statements in May 2024 that
Greenlight was a politically charged environment, and that he was treated negatively due to his
political views. These statements are absolutely false.
176.
On May 19, 2024, in response to posts about why he left Greenlight, Fishback
posted to X stating that “I don’t stick around if I don’t believe in the mission/vision.”
44
PDF Page 46
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 45 of 58
177.
Then, in connection with comments Fishback gave to MarketWatch in connection
with its May 20, 2024 article entitled “Greenlight Capital’s clash with a former employee has
captivated the hedge-fund world,” Fishback stated, for the first time ever, that he left Greenlight
due to political reasons. Specifically, the MarketWatch article, which purported to contain
statements from Fishback, reported that: “Fishback—who has previously been pictured with
Donald Trump and appeared on podcasts with ex-Republican contender Vivek Ramaswamy—said
he left Greenlight following disagreements with Einhorn over politics and the direction the hedge
fund was taking.” Fishback re-posted the Marketwatch article on his X account on May 20, 2024.
178.
Fishback’s statements about leaving Greenlight for political reasons were false.
179.
In the May 23, 2024 episode of the Forward Guidance Podcast discussed above,
Fishback elaborated on these falsehoods, stating that his going on Fox News in June of 2023 “was
not well received at Greenlight,” which he clarified was due to political reasons.10
180.
These statements are also completely false.
181.
Fishback’s statements that political disagreements were his reason for leaving are
clearly contradicted by the circumstances of his departure. For one, Greenlight believes that
Fishback resigned from Greenlight because he deduced that he was about to be terminated. Even
the reasons Fishback gave for leaving Greenlight—first, to run Incubate Debate, and second, to
10
Fishback explained in the full exchange:
Fishback: “…certainly ruffled some feathers when I went on Fox News and Newsmax and talked about a
young lady from Broward County where I grew up, who was told at a high school debate tournament that she was
not allowed to bring up President Trump in a speech about President Biden's foreign policy. Certainly, that was not
well received at Greenlight.”
Interviewer: “And how did you know that? Did you - you heard it from people? Oh, so-and-so isn't pleased
or it was just a vibe you got.”
Fishback: “Oh, I was told I was told directly.”
Interviewer: “You were told directly. And do you think that those political differences contributed to your
departure?”
Fishback: “I think that they certainly didn't help.”
45
PDF Page 47
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 46 of 58
run Azoria—undermine his claims that he had left for political reasons, or disagreed with
Greenlight’s “mission.”
182.
Indeed, in Fishback’s resignation email to Mr. Einhorn on July 31, 2023, Fishback
wrote “I would love to continue working with you. If you’d have me, I hope we could return to a
part-time consulting arrangement, where I could share macro trade ideas with you and pursue my
passion with Incubate Debate.”
183.
In a second email to Mr. Einhorn on August 6, 2023, Fishback again wrote “As I
mentioned in my email on Monday, it is my hope to return to my original role as an external
consultant and advise on existing and new macro positions….”
184.
These are not things that Fishback would have communicated to Mr. Einhorn if he
was leaving Greenlight due to political scrutiny or disagreement with its mission or values or due
to a hostile and discriminatory work environment.
185.
Furthermore, it is clear that Fishback is attempting to use politics as a scapegoat for
his failure to meet expectations and perform his duties as a Greenlight employee adequately. For
instance, Fishback’s statements that his appearance on Fox News in 2023 was “not well-received”
at Greenlight for political reasons is clearly contradicted by his communications with Greenlight.
186.
When Greenlight learned that Fishback was pursuing television appearances, Mr.
Einhorn explicitly told Fishback on June 2, 2023 that it “doesn’t bother me that you are on Fox
TV,” but notified Fishback that he thought Fishback’s devotion of time to personal endeavors—
whatever they might have been—were negatively affecting his performance at Greenlight.
187.
Indeed, the issue with Fishback appearing on Fox News had nothing to do with
what he intended to say (which Greenlight frankly knew nothing about), but the fact that it would
46
PDF Page 48
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 47 of 58
take away from the already little time he was devoting to his Greenlight work. The email
correspondence on this issue is clear: On June 26, 2023, Fishback emailed Mr. Roitman and said:
“I have stepped off for 45 mins to do an interview with Bret Baier
(Fox News) on high school debate. I’ll be live at 10:45AM”
Mr. Roitman’s response email said:
“Well - it's a workday. You ought to be working.
This school debate thing has become a full second job.
We should discuss later this week.”
188.
There is absolutely no mention of politics, Fishback’s political views or anything
political whatsoever in this email exchange or any other exchanges with Greenlight.
189.
As a successful investment firm, Greenlight’s focus is on making decisions that
make economic sense for investors, and political preferences or ideologies that do not bear on the
merits of investment decisions are not a part of Greenlight’s decision-making process. Likewise,
diversity of thought and opinion are welcomed at Greenlight, and individuals with views spanning
the political spectrum are equally inclined and encouraged to succeed at Greenlight.
190.
In fact, Greenlight prefers that politics be kept out of its work entirely, so as not to
disrupt its business. But in this instance, it was Fishback that injected his own outside activities
into the workplace, which he now uses as a convenient scapegoat for his other shortcomings as an
employee.
191.
For these reasons, Fishback’s misrepresentations about politicization are extremely
harmful to Greenlight. They create the false impression that employees are scrutinized based on
their political beliefs, and harm Greenlight’s ability to recruit and hire investment professionals.
192.
In turn, these statements also suggest to investors that Greenlight allows its
investment decisions to be clouded by politics, to the detriment of its investors’ confidence in
Greenlight. To be sure, Fishback said as much in his appearance on the Forward Guidance podcast,
47
PDF Page 49
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 48 of 58
stating: “[a]gain, this is not about differences in political opinion. This is about, to the extent that
it matters, to what extent are you letting those political differences influence your investing
process….”
193.
Fishback’s motives in attempting to denigrate Greenlight to potential future
employees could not be clearer. For instance, on May 20, 2024, Fishback posted to X: “If you
want get paid what you’re worth, don’t work at Greenlight.” And on June 2, 2024, Fishback quite
childishly changed the bio of his X account to read: “Past: Head of Macro at Greenlight (sucks)”
and “Past: Head of Macro at Greenlight (ew),” as shown below.
194.
Overall, Fishback seems to have accomplished his goal of generating the publicity
he sought. Fishback’s posts themselves were widely viewed, with some receiving more than one
million views. Major media outlets covered the “dispute” that Fishback pretextually procured,
including the New York Times, Business Insider, Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg and Morningstar, and
as a result, his wrongful statements have been published to millions more.
195.
Because these publications have been made without full and accurate information,
they have lent an air of legitimacy to Fishback’s “position” in the dispute, when in reality,
Fishback’s position is built around prevarications, misappropriation of Greenlight’s track record,
48
PDF Page 50
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 49 of 58
disclosures of Greenlight Confidential Information, and other threats to impose harm on
Greenlight.
196.
The harm of these statements to Greenlight is apparent. Greenlight has already
received inquiries regarding Fishback’s claims from investors, business partners, peers in the
investment community, and the press related to Fishback’s inflated and fictitious role in
Greenlight’s performance. And because Fishback has been relentless and unabashed in his
campaign to publicly use Greenlight Confidential Information and make misrepresentations about
Greenlight’s business and his responsibilities at Greenlight, Fishback’s unlawful statements have
damaged, and pose a continued risk of damaging, Greenlight’s reputation and goodwill with
numerous parties that are vital to Greenlight’s success, including Greenlight’s current and future
investors, business partners, potential employees, and the financial community at large.
197.
Given the wide press coverage that Fishback has generated, and the adage that “bad
news travels fast,” there is no feasible way for Greenlight to identify the parties to whom
Fishback’s statements have been published, such that Greenlight can correct the record and assess
the extent of damage done due to the disclosure of its Confidential Information, and the other
injurious falsehoods that have been spread by Fishback.
198.
Furthermore, Fishback’s recent public statements confirm that he is both still in
physical possession of Greenlight’s Confidential Information, and willing to disclose Confidential
Information in his possession and knowledge, absent injunctive relief.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract – Employment Agreement)
199.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth herein.
49
PDF Page 51
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 50 of 58
200.
Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Fishback has an undisputed obligation not
to use or disclose Greenlight’s Confidential Information without authorization pursuant to his
Employment Agreement. He likewise had and continues to have an undisputed contractual
obligation to return and not keep Greenlight’s valuable Confidential Information after he decided
to leave Greenlight.
201.
Fishback violated these provisions of the Employment Agreement by accessing and
downloading various Confidential Information to his personal devices during the course of his
employment, as demonstrated by his failure to use Greenlight’s proper information storage
locations, and his forwarding of Confidential Information from his Greenlight email address to his
personal email address during his last two weeks at Greenlight, after he tendered his resignation.
202.
Contrary to his representation to Greenlight that he deleted certain of the
Confidential Information he took from Greenlight (which he failed to confirm in response to letters
from Greenlight’s counsel), Fishback has continued to violate these provisions of the Employment
Agreement by discussing Greenlight’s Confidential Information with third parties on public
platforms, and confirming via public statements that he is still in possession of Greenlight’s
Confidential Information. Specifically, Fishback has recently made multiple statements regarding
Greenlight’s investment positions, strategies, profits, and track record in written and audiovisual
posts to his X account that have all constituted a misuse of Confidential Information.
203.
As a direct consequence of these egregious breaches, Greenlight has, at the very
least, not received the benefit of the bargain associated with the Employment Agreement with
Fishback, and will suffer an even greater harm if Fishback is not enjoined from continuing to
possess, use, and disclose Greenlight’s Confidential Information, further breaching the agreement.
50
PDF Page 52
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 51 of 58
204.
Greenlight performed its own contractual obligations under the Employment
Agreement.
205.
In the event of a breach or threatened breach of the Employment Agreement,
Greenlight is entitled to an injunction restricting Fishback from committing or continuing the
breach or threatened breach under the Employment Agreement.
206.
As a direct and proximate cause of the Fishback’s breach of contract, Greenlight
has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial damages, including, without limitation, the loss
of economic advantage, and denial of its bargained for exchange, and, accordingly, Greenlight is
entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
207.
Greenlight will continue to be directly and proximately damaged if Fishback is not
immediately and permanently enjoined from further breaching the Employment Agreement and
prohibited from further accessing, using, and disclosing Greenlight’s Confidential Information.
208.
Greenlight has no adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable injury and
damages as a result of Fishback’s actions.
209.
Fishback agreed in the Employment Agreement that a violation of the
Confidentiality Provision would cause irreparable injury to Greenlight, and that Greenlight was
entitled to seek injunctive relief in order to enforce the Confidentiality Provision. See Employment
Agreement § 11 (stating that that “money damages may not be an adequate remedy for any breach
or threatened breach of” the Confidentiality Provision, and that Greenlight “may in its sole
discretion apply to any court of law or equity of competent jurisdiction for specific performance
and/or injunctive relief in order to enforce or prevent any violations of such provisions.”)
51
PDF Page 53
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 52 of 58
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Competition)
210.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth herein.
211.
Both before and after leaving Greenlight, Fishback has falsely exaggerated his role
at Greenlight and falsely claimed credit for the management and performance of Greenlight’s
macro investment portfolio. Fishback did so to obtain a commercial benefit for himself and the
hedge fund that he created while at Greenlight, Azoria Partners, rather than building his own
business by investing the time and capital necessary to do so.
212.
Fishback has undertaken these misrepresentations in bad faith and with full
knowledge of the falsity of his statements and the wrongfulness of his actions.
213.
By virtue of the foregoing, Fishback has engaged in unfair competition and
continues to compete unfairly with Plaintiffs, seeking to reap what he has not sown.
214.
The acts of unfair competition include Fishback’s public and repeated false claims
that he was promoted to “Head of Macro” at Greenlight, was responsible for managing macro
investing at Greenlight, and was responsible for Greenlight’s macro investing profits.
215.
Fishback lied about his responsibility for managing Greenlight’s investments, and
took credit for performance data that belongs to Greenlight, in connection with his marketing of
Azoria Partners and himself.
216.
In making these false claims, Fishback has misappropriated Plaintiffs’ track record,
goodwill, and reputation. The successful performance of Plaintiffs’ trades, including the macro
investment portfolio which Fishback claims to have managed on his own, were the result of Mr.
Einhorn and Plaintiffs’ labor, skill and resources.
52
PDF Page 54
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 53 of 58
217.
Fishback’s representations about his role are intended to mislead, and have misled,
investors into thinking that Fishback is responsible for the successful performance of Plaintiffs’
macro investment portfolio.
218.
In addition, Fishback has taken and used for his own devices the Confidential
Information of Greenlight, including information relating to the year-to-date profit and loss of
certain Greenlight interest rate positions and an “internal trading ledger.” Fishback has used this
information to solicit investments from the investing public, including present or potential
investors of Plaintiffs. Fishback has also used this Confidential Information as part of his
campaign to disparage Greenlight and its investment practices, including by discussing his
“internal trading ledger” on the May 23, 2024 Forward Guidance Podcast, in which he impugned
Plaintiffs’ and Einhorn’s abilities to engage in successful macro investing.
219.
Plaintiffs exercised due diligence in attempting to discover the claims against
Fishback asserted herein, including the instant claim.
220.
By virtue of the foregoing, Fishback has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs
to suffer substantial money damages, as well as injury that cannot be calculated, and irreparable
harm to its business, reputation, and goodwill.
221.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their damages suffered as a proximate result of
Fishback’s unfair competition, as alleged herein, in an amount to be proven at trial.
222.
Fishback’s unfair competition has been willful, wanton and malicious.
223.
As a result of Fishback’s willful, wanton, and malicious conduct, Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover punitive damages against Fishback in an amount to be determined at trial.
53
PDF Page 55
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 54 of 58
224.
In addition, as alleged herein, Fishback’s common law violations have caused and
will continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm that is not adequately remedied at law and that
requires permanent injunctive relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
225.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth herein.
226.
Plaintiffs have existing business relationships with their investors and prospective
investors in that there was a reasonable probability of future economic benefit from Plaintiffs’
relationship with their actual and prospective investors.
227.
Fishback knew of Plaintiffs’ existing business relationships with their actual and
prospective investors and intentionally interfered with them by presenting them with false and
misleading information, as alleged herein.
228.
As alleged herein, Fishback used dishonest, unfair, and improper means to interfere
with Plaintiffs’ relationships with its actual and prospective investors by inflating his perceived
importance and accomplishments at Greenlight to the investing public, in marketing himself and
his new fund, in an attempt to undermine Mr. Einhorn and Plaintiffs’ perceived macro investing
capabilities and interfere with Plaintiffs’ relationship with its investors.
229.
Specifically, Fishback has made demonstrably false statements (including on X
(formerly “Twitter”) and in public appearances) about his employment credentials and
responsibilities—particularly that he was “Head of Macro,” “ran macro” investing at Greenlight,
and that no one else at Greenlight has the ability to run macro trading—which misappropriate
Plaintiffs’ track record.
54
PDF Page 56
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 55 of 58
230.
Fishback made these false statements knowing that they were accessible to
Plaintiffs’ investors.
231.
These statements by Fishback were knowingly false.
232.
As alleged herein, Fishback has perpetrated a campaign of misrepresentations about
Plaintiffs’ business and misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ Confidential Information which has
damaged and risks continuing to damage Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill with numerous parties
that are vital to Plaintiffs’ success, including their actual and prospective investors, business
partners, potential employment prospects, and the financial community at large.
233.
Plaintiffs exercised due diligence in attempting to discover the claims against
Fishback asserted herein, including the instant claim.
234.
By virtue of the foregoing, Fishback has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs
to suffer substantial money damages, as well as injury that cannot be calculated, and irreparable
harm to its business, reputation, and goodwill.
235.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their damages suffered as a proximate result of
Fishback’s tortious interference with its actual and prospective investors, as alleged herein, in an
amount to be proven at trial.
236.
Fishback’s tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ relationships with their actual and
prospective investors has been willful, wanton and malicious.
237.
As a result of Fishback’s willful, wanton, and malicious conduct, Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover punitive damages against Fishback in an amount to be determined at trial.
238.
In addition, as alleged herein, Fishback’s common law violations have caused and
will continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm that is not adequately remedied at law and that
requires permanent injunctive relief.
55
PDF Page 57
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 56 of 58
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation and Defamation Per Se)
239.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs
above as though fully set forth herein.
240.
Fishback committed defamation by making public statements on dozens of
occasions detailed herein that he was the “Head of Macro,” that he was responsible for managing
Plaintiffs’ macro trading operations, that he was responsible for Plaintiffs’ macro trading profits,
returns, and performance, and that no one else at Greenlight has the ability to run macro trading.
241.
Fishback also committed defamation by making public statements that he was
subject to scrutiny and criticism for his political views at Greenlight.
242.
These statements were knowingly false and made with malice.
243.
As a result of the false statements made by Fishback, Plaintiffs have been forced to
expend time, money, and other resources in order to ascertain the harmful extent of Fishback’s
actions, and pursue actions to correct his false statements.
244.
In addition, Plaintiffs’ current investors could refrain from investing additional
amounts with Plaintiffs as a result of these false statements, and Fishback’s false statements have
deterred new investors from making investments with Plaintiffs. Fishback’s statements have also
caused damage to Plaintiffs by impairing the Plaintiffs’ ability to recruit potential employees.
245.
Fishback’s statements have also impugned Plaintiffs’ reputation in their profession,
business, and/or trade, and are therefore defamatory per se.
246.
As a direct and foreseeable result of the defamation by Fishback, Plaintiffs are
entitled to an award of all monetary damages that they have incurred and are continuing to incur
in their business as result of such conduct, as well as disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains received
by Fishback resulting from these statements.
56
PDF Page 58
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 57 of 58
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully requests judgment as follows:
(a)
Entry of a permanent injunction ordering Fishback to refrain from breaching the
terms of his Employment Agreement, and specifically enjoining: (i) Fishback from retaining any
Confidential Information in any form (including computer files, removable media “thumb drives,”
CDs, electronic files on removal media or in any other electronic form, and hard copy documents)
and instead returning all copies of such documents, materials, computer files and other data to
Greenlight, and destroying any such Confidential Information that would remain in Fishback’s
possession even following return (i.e., computer files); and (ii) Fishback from disclosing or
otherwise using Greenlight’s Confidential Information;
(b)
Entry of a permanent injunction ordering Fishback to refrain from making
misrepresentations that are tortious and violative of Plaintiffs’ common law rights under New York
law, including that: (i) Fishback was Greenlight’s Head of Macro; (ii) Fishback was responsible
for managing or running Greenlight’s macro trading activity; and (iii) that Fishback was
responsible for Greenlight’s macro trading success;
(c)
Granting judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on its claims and awarding Plaintiffs an
amount of monetary damages to be determined at trial, including but not limited to damages in an
amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for Fishback’s breach of contract and damages for the
business lost by Plaintiffs as a result of Fishback’s unfair competition and other tortious
misconduct; and
(d)
In the alternative, awarding Plaintiffs nominal damages;
(e)
Awarding Plaintiffs punitive and/or liquidated damages;
(f)
Awarding Plaintiffs nominal damages;
(g)
Awarding Plaintiffs the reasonable costs and disbursements of this action;
57
PDF Page 59
Case 1:24-cv-04832 Document 1 Filed 06/25/24 Page 58 of 58
(h)
Awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest on the judgment amount;
(i)
Awarding Plaintiffs any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
New York, New York
Dated: June 25, 2024
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
By:
/s/ Stephen M. Baldini
Stephen M. Baldini
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
One Bryant Park
New York, NY 10036
Tel: 212-872-1000
Fax: 212-872-1002
sbaldini@akingump.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Greenlight Capital,
Inc. and DME Capital Management, LP
58