In the ongoing legal challenges faced by Charles Asubonten, former Chief Financial Officer of CalPERS, we present the embedded complaint lodged against Aurora Advisors Incorporated and Susan Webber, a/k/a Yves Smith, in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Additionally, we are sharing Asubonten’s previous complaints and significant filings from his cases in the Maryland district courts.
Charles Asubonten vs. Susan Webber:
Filed July 2023
Dismissed February 2024Charles Asubonten vs. Aurora Advisors Incorporated:
Filed February 2024
Dismissed without prejudice in May 2024
Amended complaint filed August 2024
Dismissed October 2024
Appeal filed April 2025
District court’s dismissal affirmed by Appellate Court of Maryland in an unrecorded decision July 2026
Motions to reconsider and remand denied August 2026
The trio of articles provides a comprehensive overview of the legal conflict initiated by Charles Asubonten against this site, characterized by numerous unfounded litigations. The court filings referenced in the accompanying posts reveal that Asubonten first pursued legal action against Susan Webber in July 2023 in Maryland District Court and subsequently filed against Aurora Advisors Incorporated after losing the initial case in February 2024. His aim was to remove a series of articles published in April 2018, which were later revisited and clarified by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Mike Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times, with corroboration from CalPERS’s own investigation later that year.
It is crucial to note that the central claim in Asubonten’s Maryland litigation was defamation, although he included other arguments. Most states enforce a one to two-year statute of limitations for such actions, and truthfulness stands as an absolute defense against defamation claims. Prior to our initial publication, Asubonten was approached twice to correct any inaccuracies in a lengthy summary we provided him. He did not dispute any factual inaccuracies at that time, nor did he in his Maryland cases. Only in 2026, over six years after the articles were published, did he mention a minor error—without having previously requested changes or flagged any inaccuracies.
In this Federal lawsuit in Northern Alabama, however, Asubonten has adopted a different legal strategy. He claims intentional discrimination under Section 1981 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), linking this to a tortious interference complaint under Alabama law, asserting that his job prospects in 2025 were undermined.
The defense filings clearly demonstrate the lack of merit in this case. Notably, two of the eleven affirmative defenses from the Answer indicate that the suit is time-barred and that the defendants were unaware of Asubonten’s employment endeavors following his departure from CalPERS in 2018.
Another telling aspect of Asubonten’s legal pursuits is his demand for injunctive relief and the removal of our posts in all major filings, despite failing to identify, let alone substantiate, a single inaccuracy until 2026—and then only a trivial one at that.
A simple search online reveals that the press enjoys robust First Amendment protections. Efforts to impose prior restraint have been deemed unconstitutional, even concerning national security, as evidenced by the landmark Supreme Court case involving the Pentagon Papers, *New York Times Co. v. U.S.*
The shift in Asubonten’s claims to focus on discrimination and tortious interference does not strengthen his case for censoring our reporting through an injunction or removal. The act of stating the truth, even to prospective employers, does not constitute a valid basis for any tort claim.
While being embroiled in a lawsuit is never pleasant, I feel fortunate to have outstanding representation. Those knowledgeable in law will appreciate the quality of the pleadings. My previous work with esteemed lawyers at prestigious firms affords me some insight into legal expertise. For instance, during my time at Goldman, I participated in meetings with renowned partners at Sullivan & Cromwell, including former chairman Rodgin Cohen. Similarly, at Sumitomo Bank, I worked with Gene Ludwig of Covington & Burling and Marty Edelman of Battle Fowler.
Leading the charge in our Federal case is Greg Brockwell from Brockwell Smith in Birmingham, Alabama. His work, characterized by thoroughness, strategic thinking, and determination, stands out even in what may seem like a minor case. He is supported by pension expert and litigator Gordon Hamlin, who is being admitted pro hac vice, alongside Jim Rawls, a fellow trial lawyer experienced in media defense, and a consultant for our case.
For our prolonged Maryland cases, we are immensely grateful for the diligent and expert defense provided by Brendan Thompson, Charles LaDuca, and Mike Smith from Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca in Washington DC. Mike Smith, who carried the bulk of the legal workload, will always be appreciated for his patience, tenacity, and thorough research and drafting skills; however, he has since retired.
Comments have been disabled for this post, as well as for subsequent posts regarding the filings in this case and from earlier cases. Please do not waste your time trying to discuss these cases on other posts. We have implemented measures to ensure that such comments do not appear. Opportunities for discussion will arise once we have achieved a favorable outcome, so please refrain from sharing your thoughts for now.
While I would typically welcome reader reactions and expressions of sympathy, please refrain from emailing me regarding these cases. Any such messages will be deleted without being read.
If you wish to assist us:
We encourage you to read the filings.
Please share these posts widely, particularly with those interested in learning about top-tier litigators such as Greg Brockwell from Brockwell Smith and Charles LaDuca along with Brendan Thompson from Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca.
We appreciate your interest and support. Below are the initial filings. Thank you once more for your engagement.
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 Judgment, 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, notarization, and the omission of supporting Exhibits 1-22. The links included in this Affidavit will direct you to the relevant material:
Affidavit of Susan Webber–MSJ
Thank you once again for your interest and support, and I apologize for the necessity of prohibiting discussion for the time being.
____
1 Our error stemmed from a source disputing Asubonten’s role as chairman of the Palabora Foundation. With a clearer understanding, further investigation may have revealed this article: Auditors to examine tender process, ‘unfair appointment.’
