With advice of counsel, below we have embedded the complaint, Charles Asubonten v. Aurora Advisors Incorporated and Susan Webber a/k/a Yves Smith, filed in Federal Court in the Northern District of Alabama. Again with advice of counsel, we are separately posting Asubonten’s earlier complaints and other major filings from his Maryland district court cases:
Charles Asubonten versus Susan Webber:
Filed July 2023
Dismissed February 2024Charles Asubonten versus Aurora Advisors Incorporated:
Filed February 2024
Dismissed without prejudice May 2024
Amended compliant filed August 2024
Dismissed October 2024
Appeal filed April 2025
Dismissal by district court affirmed by Appellate Court of Maryland in unrecorded decision July 2026
Motions to reconsider and remand denied August 2026
The three articles together give a broad picture of the war former CalPERS CFO Charles Asubonten has waged against this site via repeated, legally groundless litigation. As you will see from the court filings in the accompanying posts, Asubonten first sued Susan Webber in District Court in Maryland July 2023 and then immediately after losing that suit in February 2024, Aurora Advisors Incorporated. Asubonetn sought the removal of a series of articles published in April 2018, rereported with additional facts by Pulitzer Prize winner Mike Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times in April 2018, and substantially confirmed by CalPERS later that year in its own investigation.
Keep in mind the underlying basis of Ausubonten’s Maryland actions was defamation, although he added other claims. Most states have a one or two year statute of limitations. In addition, truthfulness is an absolute defense against defamation. Asubonten was asked twice before we first published to correct any inaccuracies in a very long summary we sent to him. He did not make any factual disputes then, nor did he in his Maryland cases. Only now has he identified one inconsequential error, in 2026, more than six years after the articles ran and during which he had failed to ask for specific changes or document any inaccuracy. .1
Asubonten has adopted a different legal strategy in this Federal suit in the Northern District of Alabama. Here he alleges intentional discrimination under Section 1981 (42 U.S.C. § 1981). Asubonten links that to a complaint under Alabama law of tortious interference, which is derailing a prospective or existing contract, specifically three job opportunities in 2025.
You can see from the defense filings below that this action is without merit. Consider of two of the eleven affirmative defenses from the Answer plus further detail from the Motion for Summary Judgment and Affidavit: that the suit is time barred (beyond the relevant statutes of limitations) and that the defendants could not have engaged in tortious interference because they had no idea about any of Asubonten’s employment efforts after he left CalPERS in 2018.
Another indicator of the baselessness of Asubonten’s litigation campaign is his demand in all his major filings for injunctive relief and removal of our posts, despite his failure to identify, let alone substantiate, a single inaccuracy until 2026, and then only a trivial one.
A casual web search shows that the press enjoys extremely strong First Amendment protections. Attempts at prior restraint have been deemed unconstitutional even in case of national security, as the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the Pentagon Papers, New York Times Co. v. U.S., underscores.
The fact that Asubonten has shifted his claims to discrimination and related tortious interference does not put him on better foundation regarding his attempt to censor our reporting via an injunction and/or removal. Telling the truth, even to potential employers, is not legally the basis for any tort claim whatsoever.
Although being sued is never a happy experience, I am delighted to have gotten such excellent representation. The lawyers in the house will be able to confirm that for themselves by reading the pleadings. I consider myself to be a reasonably good judge of legal acumen by having been fortunate enough to work with top lawyers at big white shoe firms earlier in my career. For instance, at Goldman, I was part of meetings with highly respected partners at Sullivan & Cromwell, such as later chairman Rodgin Cohen. At Sumitomo Bank, I engaged Gene Ludwig of Covington & Burling and Marty Edelman of Battle Folwer.
Greg Brockwell of Brockwell Smith in Birmingham, Alabama , the lead counsel on this Federal case, focuses on business torts and has, even at this early phase of the proceedings, demonstrated that he is thorough, strategic, and tenacious, as well as attentive on what for him is a comparatively small matter. He is supported by pension maven and litigator Gordon Hamlin, who is being admitted pro hac vice, and Jim Rawls, a fellow trial lawyer with expertise in media defense (Gannett was one of his clients) who is a consultant to this case.
On our too-long-running Maryland cases, we are enormously grateful for the tenacious and highly expert defense by Brendan Thompson, Charles LaDuca, and Mike Smith Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca in Washington DC. Mike Smith did most of the legal heavy lifting. Mike, to whom we will remain forever grateful for his patience, relentlessness, and careful investigation and drafting, has retired.
Comments are turned off for this post and will be for all other posts with later filings from this case and from the earlier cases. Please do not waste your time trying to discuss these cases on other posts. We have set up ample measures to assure these comments will not appear. There will be ample opportunity for discussion once we have prevailed, so hold your thoughts.
As much as I would normally very much enjoy reader reactions and expressions of sympathy, similarly, please also do not e-mail me about these cases. Any such messages will be deleted unread.
If you want to help:
Please read the filings
Please circulate the posts widely, particularly to those who might be interested in learning about top-notch litigators, Greg Brockwell of Brockwell Smith in Birmingham, Alabama and Charles LaDuca and Brendan Thompson of Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca in Washington DC.
Please see the initial filings below. Thanks again for your interest and support.
00 Asubonten v. AURORA ADVISORS INCORPORATED - WEBBER - 10.06.26_compressed
The Answer, filed Friday October 23:
00 2026-10-23 Answer of AAI
The Motion for Summary Judgement, filed Monday October 26:
00 2026-10-26 Memo in Support of MSJ of AAI
The Affidavit below, which is Exhibit A in the Evidentiary Submission filed Monday October 26,is identical to the executed and filed version except for my signature and the notarization and the omission of the supporting Exhibits 1-22. The links in this Affidavit will take you to the relevant material:
Affidavit of Susan Webber--MSJ
Again, thanks for your interest and support, and apologies for the need to keep the lid on discussion for now.
____
1 Our mistake came from a source, who disputed that Asubonen had been the chairman of the Palabora Foundation. Had we understood otherwise, futher investigation might have led us to this article: Auditors to examine tender process, ‘unfair appointment’.
