Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 1 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`
`: CIVIL ACTION NO:
`:
`:
`:
`
`:
`: VERIFIED COMPLAINT:
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`: OCTOBER 13, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOSSACK FONSECA & CO., S.A, BUFETE
`MF & CO., JÜRGEN MOSSACK and
`RAMÓN FONSECA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX INC.
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action for damages and injunctive relief against Defendant
`
`Netflix for Defamation (Libel and Libel Per Se), False Light Invasion of Privacy,
`
`Trademark Infringement by Dilution, and Federal False Advertising.
`
`
`
`In its movie “The Laundromat,” the Defendant defames and portrays the Plaintiffs
`
`as ruthless uncaring lawyers who are involved in money laundering, tax evasion, bribery
`
`and/or other criminal conduct. Academy award winner Gary Oldman plays Plaintiff,
`
`JÜRGEN MOSSACK, whose real name is used in the film. Antonio Banderas plays
`
`Plaintiff, RAMÓN FONSECA, whose real name is also used in the film. In the movie’s
`
`trailer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuBRcfe4bSo, the opening clips state the
`
`movie is “based on some real shit” and several screens appear asking the question “how
`
`do 15 million millionaires in 200 countries stay rich . . . [answer] with lawyers like
`
`these,” followed by a screen shot of Oldman and Banderas laughing sinisterly, dressed in
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 2 of 42
`
`flashy clothing. Throughout the trailer and movie Oldman and Banderas narrate as close-
`
`up bookends, faces to easily attribute criminal and negative innuendo.
`
`
`
`Famous academy award winning actress Meryl Streep, playing recently widowed
`
`Ellen Martin who lost her beloved husband on a fall boat tour, pursues justice after being
`
`told by her lawyer that her de minimis settlement with the tour operator was related to a
`
`recent change in their insurer. Essentially, their new offshore insurance company was
`
`defunct, if it ever existed, and Streep’s lawyer states “so there is confusion over who has
`
`to pay.” The trailer, designed to attract future moviegoers and boost sales, follows this
`
`comment with Streep responding to the lawyer: “so they drown you and 20 twenty other
`
`innocent people,” while another background voice adds “and somebody’s making money
`
`off it.” The dialogue spans clips of Streep mourning at a funeral, then reverting back to
`
`her lawyer’s office where she is given her settlement check and told by her lawyer: “and
`
`it all goes back to this law firm Mossack Fonseca.” In an immediately subsequent clip
`
`Oldman and Banderas, dressed in flamboyant gold colored suits and sporting bowties,
`
`smile and look at one another while elderly people appear to be playing table games at a
`
`flashy nightclub casino in the background.
`
`
`
`The viewer quickly learns that MOSSACK and FONSECA are villains profiting
`
`from the death of 20 people killed in the small town boat tour, as the lawyer chimes in
`
`stating “they’re getting away with murder.” The imputed criminal conduct is
`
`supplemented seconds later when the FONSECA character asks the audience: “So how
`
`does it all work?” In the immediately following clip depicting Streep and her daughter
`
`pushing a cart in a grocery store, the answer is provided as Streep exclaims: “bribery,
`
`corruption, money laundering, millions and millions and millions of dollars,” as the scene
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 3 of 42
`
`pans away to clip showing a “download” of hacked “Panama papers” in progress at “508,
`
`905” of “11, 528, 218.” The files being downloaded are the notorious 11.5 million
`
`hacked documents imparted to a German reporter who enlisted the International
`
`Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) to unleash the stolen data, worldwide, in
`
`articles and other media accounts of politicians, criminals, and other wealthy people
`
`using offshore companies to hide assets and launder money.
`
`
`
`The “download” frames are followed by a statement echoing the message of the
`
`film: “somebody needs to sound the alarm,” whereupon Banderas is bombarded with
`
`ringing and beeping of multiple phones. Immediately thereafter, other clips of people
`
`apparently connected to offshore accounts through the law firm of Mossack Fonseca
`
`exclaim “shit” and/or other expletives in different languages, including an English
`
`speaking lady at a bar, a gentlemen dressed in garb resembling a Sheik, two Russian
`
`gangsters, and the wife of a Chinese politician driving by some soldiers. The clear
`
`implication is that all of these people are associated with criminal activity, and they have
`
`been “outed” in the “hack and release” of the firm’s client information. As the scene
`
`returns, it depicts Oldman and Banderas in a Board Room in front of a huge shot of the
`
`law firm’s logo, which includes the names of Plaintiffs MOSSACK and FONSECA.
`
`The two actors are depicted with concerned “we’ve been outed” expressions. The
`
`implications and innuendo converge to cast Plaintiffs in the light of mastermind criminals
`
`whose crimes include, but are not limited to, murder, bribery, money laundering and/or
`
`corruption. Defendant’s trailer and movie have clearly defamed the Plaintiffs and cast
`
`them in the false light of criminality.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 4 of 42
`
`
`
`In the course of the movie the Defendant also uses the Plaintiffs’ already public,
`
`famous and/or notorious trademarked logo in disparaging ways. The trailer and movie
`
`incorporate a trademarked logo which is registered in Colombia and protected under the
`
`1929 General Inter-American Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection, a
`
`self-executing Treaty, wherein both Colombia and the United States are member States,
`
`and wherein member states are authorized to pursue protection and infringement claims
`
`using the legal system in the member State of the offending party.
`
`
`
`The Plaintiffs did not authorize, permit, assign, or license Defendant’s use of their
`
`protected logos. The Defendant’s use and display of the logo in the “Laundromat,”
`
`greatly diminishes and/or dilutes its value and goodwill. Defendant’s trailer and movie
`
`also utilize the logo unnecessarily, placing it in scenes that allow the viewer to associate
`
`it with very serious criminal and unethical behavior. In doing so, the Defendant infringes
`
`upon the protected logos, disparaging and tarnishing the same for no necessary or
`
`colorable artistic purpose, or other constitutional benefit of expression. The logo is used
`
`approximately 8 times between the trailer and the movie proper, exposed on the side of a
`
`building, on a client folder, twice behind a transparent door in an office, on a background
`
`re-broadcast of a CNN news segment, and three times in scene backgrounds projected on
`
`large screen televisions, including one instance lasting approximately 30 seconds.
`
`Clearly, the Defendant uses the logo in its trailer to attract moviegoers and generate
`
`revenue, and in the movie to benefit economically from the reality the logo lends to its
`
`scenes. Defendant’s use is not incidental. When viewing the logo placement in both the
`
`trailer and the movie, the viewer will assume that the Plaintiffs endorse and/or approve
`
`the use, however, the manner in which the logo is used would cause most viewers a
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 5 of 42
`
`mental association that would be unsavory, damaging, and/or unwelcomed by the
`
`Plaintiff owners of the logo. Accordingly, the Defendant has diluted and falsely
`
`advertised the logo, all to the detriment of the Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`While the preview has been in the public domain for several weeks, the movie has
`
`been released in two limited public engagements to date at the Venice and Toronto film
`
`festivals. The movie’s expected release date to a general public audience in theatres was
`
`September 27, 2019 and, thereafter, to millions of NETFLIX subscribers worldwide on
`
`or about October 18, 2019.
`
`
`
`Notably, the anticipated release dates correspond with times during which the
`
`Plaintiffs will be defending criminal charges against them in Panama. Moreover, the
`
`charges against the Defendants were instituted notitia criminis - merely because the news
`
`and/or media alleged or implied that the Plaintiffs were engaged in criminal activity. The
`
`significance for this case is that new implications that arise in “The Laundromat,” will
`
`likely precipitate Panamanian prosecutors to investigate any accusation or criminal
`
`implications revealed therein. Thus, while the Plaintiffs have no connection to Cartel
`
`murders or Russian gangster money laundering, an investigation into allegations made
`
`directly and/or via innuendo in the movie, may subject Plaintiffs to unnecessary and
`
`unwanted legal attention. Notably, the two current prosecutions have resulted in “country
`
`arrest” and bail, and both cases were precipitated by media accounts of “Panama Papers”
`
`allegations. With the release of the movie in Panama expected on October 18, 2019, and
`
`elsewhere even earlier, the Plaintiffs could be subjected to additional bail and/or
`
`conditions for each new crime imputed to them in the movie.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 6 of 42
`
`
`
`Additionally, since both MOSSACK and FONSECA are the subjects of an FBI
`
`Investigation in the Southern District of New York that could result in a Trial in the
`
`United States, the false “Big Screen” portrayal of their involvement in money laundering
`
`and/or other financial crimes poses an immediate threat and harm to the Plaintiffs’ fair
`
`Trial rights here. The Libelous representations made about Plaintiffs’ involvement in
`
`criminal and unethical behavior, stand (1) to affect current criminal proceedings against
`
`them in Panama, (2) precipitate additional criminal investigations in Panama, and (3) to
`
`pollute a potential jury pool in a U.S. criminal prosecution.
`
`
`
`Ultimately, at the hands of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs unwarrantedly solidify a
`
`global finance role as poster children for money laundering and tax evasion, complete
`
`with a logo that the Defendant ensures will guarantee a mental association with crime and
`
`corruption. Accordingly, in addition to damages, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
`
`preventing NETFLIX from defaming the Plaintiffs, or any of them, and disparaging and
`
`misusing their protected logo(s) for economic gain. Given the nature of the gravamen
`
`suffered, and the reputational and due process interests as stake, the Plaintiffs are
`
`subjected to immanent and immediate irreparable harm for which they should be entitled
`
`to injunctive relief.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action: (1) under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332, since there is diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendant, and the
`
`amount in controversy (exclusive of interest and costs) exceeds the sum of seventy five
`
`thousand dollars ($75,000.00); (2) under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since claims herein arise
`
`under the Constitution, laws and/or treaties of the United States, namely the Trademark
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 7 of 42
`
`Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et. seq. (the “Lanham Act”) and/or the self-
`
`executing 1929 General Inter-American Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial
`
`Protection; (3) under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq.
`
`(the “Lanham Act”), via the 1929 General Inter-American Convention for Trade Mark
`
`and Commercial Protection, a self-executing Treaty; and (4) under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, for
`
`all state law claims pled herein, because those claims are joined with, and are so related
`
`to Plaintiffs’ claims under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051,
`
`et. seq. (the “Lanham Act”) over which this Court has original jurisdiction, that they form
`
`part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`
`
`This Court has in personam jurisdiction over the Defendant in this action since the
`
`Defendant is registered as a foreign corporation authorized to conduct business in the
`
`State of Connecticut, and because Defendant regularly engages in business in this judicial
`
`district, advertising and marketing its streaming video products, selling subscriptions, and
`
`ultimately streaming programs into the State and the entire United States of America.
`
`VENUE
`
`
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Connecticut under U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that
`
`claims and causes of action arise in this Jurisdiction.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff respectfully demands a Trial by Jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 8 of 42
`
`FIRST COUNT
` (Libel - As to All Plaintiffs)
`
`
`1. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs, JÜRGEN
`
`
`
`
`MOSSACK and RAMÓN FONSECA, were licensed attorneys practicing law,
`
`and residing in the Republic of Panama.
`
`
`
`2. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff BUFETE MF & CO.
`
`(hereinafter “MF”) was a Panamanian law firm, organized as a partnership, wholly
`
`owned by its equal partners, Plaintiffs, JÜRGEN MOSSACK and RAMÓN
`
`FONSECA, and duly registered under the laws of the Republic of Panama, with a
`
`head office located at Edificio Mossfon, Segundo Piso, Calle 54 Este, Ciudad de
`
`Panama.
`
`
`
`
`
`3. At all times material to this Complaint, MOSSACK FONSECA &
`
`CO, S.A. (hereinafter “MFSA”), was a closely held Panamanian corporation duly
`
`formed and existing under the laws of the Republic of Panama, wholly owned by its
`
`two equal shareholders, Plaintiffs, JÜRGEN MOSSACK and RAMÓN FONSECA,
`
`with a head office located at Edificio Mossfon, Segundo Piso, Calle 54 Este, Ciudad
`
`de Panama.
`
`
`
`4. The Defendant, NETFLIX INC. (hereinafter “NETFLIX”), is a
`
`diversified multinational media corporation duly formed and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of Delaware, conducting business throughout the world, including in
`
`Connecticut and the rest of the United States.
`
`
`
`5. Defendant NETFLIX operates and conducts business in the State of
`
`Connecticut, and is registered as a Foreign Corporation authorized to conduct
`
`business by the Connecticut Secretary of State, bearing Registration Number
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 9 of 42
`
`0735070, listing its principle head office address as 100 Winchester Circle, Los
`
`Gatos, California.
`
`
`
`6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, JÜRGEN MOSSACK,
`
`RAMÓN FONSECA, MF and/or MFSA (hereinafter referred to collectively as
`
`“MFGROUP”), jointly and/or individually, were primarily engaged in the business
`
`of forming and maintaining offshore companies (hereinafter “products”) for clients,
`
`corporate and/or otherwise, including, but not limited to, banks, law firms,
`
`accountants and/or other institutional/professional clientele (hereinafter “original
`
`clients”).
`
`
`
`7. MFGROUP’s products were sold in Panama and other countries
`
`commonly referred to as “tax havens” where, until recently, corporate disclosures
`
`have been limited and tax treatment has been favorable.
`
`
`
`8. In the course of business, the Plaintiffs and/or any of them, did not
`
`counsel, advise and/or provide legal advice to ultimate end users (hereinafter
`
`“UEUs”) to whom their products were sold by Plaintiffs’ original clients.
`
`
`
`9. In the course of it business, MFGROUP developed and maintained its
`
`own compliance standards and procedures, and implemented and/or supplemented the
`
`same as required and/or prescribed by the laws of Panama and/or any other
`
`jurisdiction, within which any of its products were sold and/or maintained, including,
`
`but not limited to, due diligence requirements mandating MFGROUP to know and
`
`keep contemporary records identifying not only its original clients, but also UEU’s
`
`when and where legally mandated to do so.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 10 of 42
`
`
`
`10. In or around 2014, in an effort to keep up with evolving "transparency
`
`motivated” laws respecting due diligence, ongoing client and UEU data collection,
`
`and client/UEU information disclosure, MFGROUP spawned a dedicated
`
`“compliance arm” entity comprised of twenty or more employees located in El
`
`Salvador.
`
`
`
`11. MFGROUP has served its clients and the industry for over forty-two
`
`(42) years collectively, during which time it built a reputation of trust and
`
`professionalism, and during which time it became a well-known worldwide leader in
`
`the perfectly legal offshore corporate formation and maintenance industry.
`
`
`
`12. MFGROUP has generated significant profits organizing and selling
`
`offshore companies, and charging fees for related corporate services including, but
`
`not limited to, corporate record maintenance and/or annual filing and/or other
`
`compliance related services.
`
`
`
`13. Likewise, MFGROUP has expended significant monies on client
`
`development, branding, and marketing its products worldwide via sponsorship,
`
`advertising, community activism, conferencing, charity and/or public service.
`
`
`
`14. In an effort to develop its brand, MFSA caused logos to be registered
`
`in various jurisdictions including Panama, the European Union, and Colombia, the
`
`same having been used in commerce worldwide and having generated significant
`
`notoriety and fame.
`
`
`
`15. In efforts to expand its brand, attract business, generate and maintain
`
`goodwill and value in its name, MFSA maintained and continues to enjoy the
`
`protections of its trademarked logos in Colombia, to wit:
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 11 of 42
`
`
`
`duly registered with the Superintendencia Industria y Comercio, Republic of
`
`Colombia, including (1) Expediente No. 10-053693 – Certificado de Registro
`
`412048, (2) Expediente No. 10-053705 – Certificado de Registro 412052, and (3)
`
`Expediente No. 10-053702 – Certificado de Registro 412051.
`
`
`
`16. For the last several years, MFSA expended many thousands of dollars
`
`purchasing items bearing its logo, for use in MFSA branding and worldwide
`
`marketing/advertising of its products and services.
`
`
`
`17. Likewise, at all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs JÜRGEN
`
`MOSSACK and RAMÓN FONSECA, invested significant time, energy, and funds,
`
`developing both their individual and corporate reputations.
`
`
`
`18. At all times material to this Complaint Plaintiffs, JÜRGEN
`
`MOSSACK and RAMÓN FONSECA, promoted their company products and
`
`contributed to the enhancement of the offshore industry by, inter alia, participating in
`
`forums, holding/sponsoring seminars, accepting speaking engagements, advising
`
`government officials, participating in charities, and maintaining membership in
`
`groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club.
`
`
`
`19. MFGROUP’s involvement in community affairs, industry
`
`enhancement, charitable works, and government advisement, enhanced and elevated
`
`MFGROUP’s reputation both locally and worldwide; as lawyers and law firms,
`
`MFGROUP enjoyed healthy and stellar reputations.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 12 of 42
`
`
`
`20. At all times material hereto, MFGROUP sought to expand further into
`
`the industry and cultivate business opportunities throughout the world, using its brand
`
`and the group’s collective reputations.
`
`
`
`21. In keeping with future plans of expansion in the industry, MF and/or
`
`MFSA entered into contracts with independent contractor representatives in many
`
`countries around the world (hereinafter “Representatives.”), including, but not limited
`
`to the United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil,
`
`Singapore, Cyprus, Israel, Dubai, Thailand, Guatemala, Chile, and the United States
`
`of America (Florida).
`
`
`
`22. Representatives were independent contractors separate and apart from
`
`MF and/or MFSA, that were permitted exclusive rights to purchase and thereafter
`
`sell MF and/or MFSA’s products and services, to newly acquired and/or existing
`
`MFGROUP clients within specified jurisdictions in exchange for fees and/or
`
`specified commissions agreed to between the parties.
`
`
`
`23. As part of the agreements, MFGROUP provided training and access
`
`to proprietary software systems, and Representatives were permitted to use variations
`
`of the MFGROUP names, along with MFSA’s logos, in the course of conducting
`
`and developing business.
`
`
`
`24. Notably, as part of such agreements, Representatives undertook and
`
`were contractually obligated to ensure legal compliance in their jurisdictions.
`
`
`
`25. The profits made upon agreements with Representatives were
`
`significant.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 13 of 42
`
`
`
`26. Representatives utilizing the MFGROUP names and logo facilitated
`
`MFGROUP’s branding efforts internationally, and enhanced its worldwide
`
`reputation.
`
`
`
`27. Between selling its own products and services, and generating
`
`Representative based income, MFGROUP enjoyed significant profits.
`
`
`
`28. In 2015, in what has been hailed but misnomered the largest “data
`
`leak” in history, an anonymous whistleblower hacked 11.5 million MFGROUP
`
`attorney-client privileged documents, and then sent the stolen documents to German
`
`journalist Bastian Obermayer at the Suddeutsche Zeitung.
`
`
`
`29. The documents, commonly referred to as the “Panama Papers,”
`
`partially and/or purportedly claimed to include information about many rich and
`
`famous people in both the private and public sectors, and made reference to over two-
`
`hundred-thousand (200,000) offshore entities created by Plaintiffs and/or any of them.
`
`
`
`30. Due to the size of the post-hack revelations, and an inability to
`
`efficiently manage the data by himself, Obermayer enlisted the help of the
`
`International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (hereinafter “ICIJ”).
`
`
`
`31. Journalists from approximately 80 countries came together at
`
`Obermayer’s behest and analyzed the hacked data for approximately one year, during
`
`which time the inner workings of MF and/or MFSA, along with a dearth of stolen,
`
`private and privileged documents were disseminated to the Consortium.
`
`
`
`32. The “hack and release” confirms that only an extremely minute
`
`percentage of offshore corporations created by MF and/or MFSA appeared to have
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 14 of 42
`
`been utilized by some UEUs for criminal activity including, but not limited to, money
`
`laundering, tax evasion, bribery and/or fraud.
`
`
`
`33. In or about April 2016, the first media accounts detailed the
`
`connections between Government officials and offshore holdings, as well as others
`
`involved in illegal activity, utilizing entities alleged to have been created by
`
`MFGROUP.
`
`
`
`34. As a result of “hack and release” revelations, the Plaintiffs, or any of
`
`them, were rumored to have dealt directly with and/or advised, assisted or counseled
`
`heads of State and/or Government including, but not limited to, Russian President
`
`Vladimir Putin, the father of former Prime Minister of England David Cameron,
`
`former President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, former Iceland Prime Minister
`
`Sigmunder Davio Gunnlaugsson, former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif,
`
`and/or any of their relatives, agents, servants, employees and/or other representatives,
`
`on the subject matter of tax avoidance, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud and/or
`
`other crimes.
`
`
`
`35. As a further result of “hack-and release” revelations, the Plaintiffs, or
`
`any of them, were rumored to have dealt directly with and/or advised, assisted or
`
`counseled notorious drug Cartel and/or other Organized Crime leaders and/or any of
`
`their relatives, agents, servants, employees and/or other representatives, on the subject
`
`matter of tax evasion, money laundering, fraud and/or other crimes.
`
`
`
`36. As a further result of “hack and release,” MFGROUP, or any of
`
`them, were rumored to have dealt directly with and/or advised, assisted or counseled
`
`international football/soccer notables such as Lionel Messi and/or FIFA executives
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 15 of 42
`
`such as its former President Gianni Infanti and/or any of their relatives, agents,
`
`servants, employees and/or other representatives, on the subject matter of tax evasion,
`
`money laundering and/or other crimes.
`
`
`
`37. The press and media generated by the Panama Papers hack, severely
`
`damaged MFGROUP’s client relations and ongoing business prospects.
`
`
`
`38. Immediately after initial news reports of hack revelations, and the
`
`rumors concerning MFGROUP’s alleged clients, banks and other third parties
`
`refused to do business with MF and/or MFSA.
`
`
`
`39. Immediately after the initial reports, and rumors concerning
`
`MFGROUP’s alleged clients, Plaintiffs all faced bank account closures and to date,
`
`all remain unable to bank anywhere in the world.
`
`
`
`40. In spite of many clients’ desire to continue working with
`
`MFGROUP, its inability to bank led to closure of its offices and ultimately the loss
`
`of its entire client base.
`
`
`
`41. As a result of investigations precipitated by the hack, JÜRGEN
`
`MOSSACK and RAMÓN FONSECA have been named as Defendants in legal
`
`proceedings in Panama by the Ministerio Publico-Fiscalia Auxilliar, to wit, one case
`
`commonly referred to as the “Lava Jato” case (Fiscal/Prosecutors File 06-2016, Court
`
`File Panama City 48931-19), and the second commonly referred to as the “Panama
`
`Papers” case (Fiscal/Prosecutors File 02-2016, Court File Panama City 87256-19 ).
`
`
`
`42. As a result of investigations and cases mentioned in paragraph forty-
`
`one (41) of this Complaint, JÜRGEN MOSSACK and RAMÓN FONSECA have been
`
`confined to the Republic of Panama, and are required to report to authorities twice a week
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 16 of 42
`
`as part of a bail order that also requires them to pay thousands of dollars to insurance
`
`companies who underwrite bail bonds to the Panamanian authorities.
`
`
`
`43. As a result of the “hack and release” investigations the Plaintiffs have
`
`been forced to hire attorneys, and have suffered damage to the goodwill and value of their
`
`businesses.
`
`
`
`44. Due to the investigations, AIG, an international insurance company,
`
`including its agents, assigns, successors, and/or other representatives, have refused to pay
`
`the Plaintiffs, or any of them, substantial monies (millions) to which they are entitled
`
`under multiple policies of insurance, citing the erroneous fact that the Plaintiffs, or any of
`
`them, were involved in money laundering and/or other financial crimes.
`
`
`
`45. In spite of being the targets of two Panamanian cases for
`
`approximately four (4) years, no MFGROUP Plaintiff has ever been convicted of any
`
`charged crime.
`
`
`
`46. In or about November of 2017, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative
`
`journalist, Jake Bernstein (hereinafter “Bernstein”), wrote a book entitled “secrecy
`
`World” based upon the “Panama Papers.”
`
`
`
`47. Upon information and belief, Bernstein thoroughly researched the
`
`nature and origin of the Panama Papers hack, and was part of the original team of ICIJ
`
`journalists who reviewed the same.
`
`
`
`48. Upon information and belief, and at all times material hereto,
`
`Bernstein knew that post-hack publications were comprised of stolen attorney-client
`
`privileged documents meant to remain confidential, and that only an extremely miniscule
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 17 of 42
`
`number of companies sold by Plaintiffs to original clients were connected to UEU
`
`criminal activity; ultimately, such UEUs were not MFGROUP clients.
`
`
`
`49. Upon information and belief, Bernstein had a full opportunity to fact-
`
`check the substance of the Panama Papers material he used to write his book.
`
`
`
`
`
`50. Upon information and belief, and at all times material to this
`
`Complaint, Bernstein knew and/or should have known that sensationalized rumors
`
`concerning MFGROUP’s involvement in criminal activity with notorious clients,
`
`including those detailed in paragraphs thirty-four (34), thirty-five (35) and/or thirty-six
`
`(36) of this Complaint, were patently false.
`
`
`
`
`
`51. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Bernstein
`
`knew that MFGROUP sold corporate services and products such as corporations and
`
`other legal entities to third parties, such as banks, lawyers, accountants and/or other
`
`professional institutions, and did not engage in advising any of its clients or UEUs on the
`
`subject matters of tax evasion or ways to launder money.
`
`
`
`
`
`52. Upon information and belief, Bernstein wrote his book entitled
`
`“Secrecy World,” for the purpose of making a profit.
`
`
`
`
`
`53. Bernstein spoke on occasion with Plaintiffs JÜRGEN MOSSACK
`
`and RAMÓN FONSECA, however, neither of these Plaintiffs, nor any other duly
`
`authorized MF and/or MFSA representative, authorized him to use the Plaintiffs’ names,
`
`likenesses and/or intellectual property in his book.
`
`
`
`
`
`54. Bernstein’s book defames the Plaintiffs, casts them in the false light
`
`of criminality, and contains unauthorized republications of MFSA’s logo.
`
`
`
`
`
`55. In spite of having spoken to Bernstein, neither JÜRGEN MOSSACK
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 18 of 42
`
`nor RAMÓN FONSECA endorses Bernstein’s book, its factual allegations and/or the
`
`conclusions drawn therein.
`
`
`
`
`
` 56. Neither JÜRGEN MOSSACK nor RAMÓFONSECA, have ever
`
`associated directly and/or indirectly with Bernstein, his book and/or any matter related
`
`thereto.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`57. The subject matter of Bernstein’s book is summarized on the front
`
`cover of the same, where Bernstein “takes us inside the world revealed by the Panama
`
`Papers, a landscape of illicit money, political corruption, and fraud on a global
`
`scale,” and purportedly introduces the reader to a “hidden circulatory system flowing
`
`beneath the surface of global finance, carrying trillions of dollars from drug trafficking,
`
`tax evasion, bribery, and other illegal enterprises . . . mask[ing] the identities of the
`
`individuals who benefit from these activities, aided by bankers, lawyers, and auditors
`
`who get paid to look the other way.”
`
`
`
`
`
`58. Upon information and belief, Bernstein sought to capitalize on his
`
`book, using claims that he personally spoke to JÜRGEN MOSSACK and RAMÓN
`
`FONSECA and, therefore, these Plaintiffs endorsed and/or otherwise approved of the
`
`factual allegations and/or conclusions drawn in his book.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`59. Upon information and belief, Bernstein approached NETFLIX and/or
`
`NETFLIX approached Bernstein, about the prospect of making a movie about the
`
`Panama Papers based upon Bernstein’s book “Secrecy World.”
`
`
`
`
`
` 60. Upon information and belief, sometime in 2017 or 2018, Bernstein
`
`and Defendant NETFLIX entered into a contract wherein the latter would produce and
`
`distribute an “A” grade movie called “The Laundromat” based upon “Secrecy World,”
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01618-JBA Document 1 Filed 10/15/19 Page 19 of 42
`
`and Bernstein would be paid in connection with the same.