Chandler V. Berlin Et Al
Case Background
On September 14, 2018, Christopher Chandler, chairman and founder of the global investment firm Legatum Group, filed a defamation lawsuit against Donald Berlin. The case revolved around a 2003 dossier created by Berlin containing explosive false allegations against Chandler that were repeated by Members of Parliament and the British press beginning in 2017.
The defamation suit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC). Judge Amit P. Mehta presided over this case. [Case number: 1:18cv2136]
Cause
Plaintiff Christopher Chandler filed a defamation lawsuit against Donald Berlin and his network of corporate entities known as Investigative Consultants Inc. (ICI). Berlin used ICI to deceive individuals seeking investigative services. He lured clients into paying exorbitant fees for worthless background reports filled with damaging false claims about various individuals, including the Chandler brothers.
Between 2002 and 2003, Berlin attempted to defraud Prince Albert II of Monaco, using Robert Eringer as an intermediary. He sought payment for fake background checks on successful expatriates, including Christopher Chandler and his brother. To solicit these payments, Berlin created a 134-page document known as the Pitch. This document included outrageous false accusations, claiming the Chandlers were involved in money laundering, organized crime, and espionage.
In his Pitch, Berlin inaccurately linked the Chandler brothers’ investment firm, Sovereign Asset Management Limited, with unrelated companies in Bristol and Switzerland that faced legal issues. He manipulated information from various sources, presenting it as if it were credible intelligence. Additionally, he fabricated a legal dispute involving Credit Agricole Indosuez and falsely implicated the Chandlers in a conspiracy related to it.
Berlin’s claims escalated to absurd levels, including accusations of the brothers being Russian spies. These allegations were based on completely false assertions, such as an alleged award and supposed secret operations. His lack of genuine expertise led to glaring inaccuracies in his fabricated narrative, including outdated references to technology.
In 2004, Eringer used information from Berlin’s Pitch for his report on the Chandler brothers, which he submitted to Prince Albert. By November 2017, Eringer disseminated the Pitch and the Eringer Report, leading to false media reports about Chandler’s supposed criminal activities. In May 2018, the British press began reporting these baseless allegations.
Damages
The Defendants intentionally and maliciously made the libelous statements, showing a clear disregard for Chandler’s rights and reputation. They lacked any privilege or legal authority to publish these false claims.
These libelous statements caused significant harm to Chandler, resulting in injuries that the law presumed. The injuries included accusations of serious crimes against him, damage to his reputation, and implications about his conduct that could harm his business reputation. Additionally, the falsehoods led to other damages that remained to be determined.
The Defendants were liable to Chandler for compensatory damages due to their defamatory actions. Furthermore, their conduct was so outrageous that they were also liable for punitive damages.
Chandler respectfully requested the Court to grant a judgment in his favor against all Defendants jointly and severally. He sought compensatory damages of no less than $10 million. He also requested punitive damages of at least $5 million under this defamation lawsuit.
Additionally, he sought reimbursement for all expenses and costs, including attorney fees. Finally, he asked for any other relief that the Court found appropriate.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): Christopher Chandler
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Amy McCann Roller | Megan Lambart Meier | Daniel P. Watkins | Mark Thomson
- Defendant(s): Donald Berlin | Investigative Consultants Inc. (ICI)
- Counsel for Defendant(s): John Patrick Dean | Steven Michael Oster
Key Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff Christopher Chandler was represented by attorneys from Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch LLP (MWPP) in this defamation lawsuit. MWPP’s trial team was led by founding partners Daniel Watkins and Megan Meier, with critical support from counsel Mark Thomson, senior associate Amy McCann Roller, and litigation professionals Kayla Mozier, Alexis Chandler, and Kayla Bussert.
“We’re elated that the jury cut through the web of deceit and delivered a verdict that will echo through the halls of justice for years to come. This is more than just a win — it’s a statement, loud and clear, that the truth still prevails,” said Mr. Watkins.
“We hope that the jury’s unanimous verdict sends a clear message to everyone who sells defamatory lies for profit,” added Ms. Meier. “Accountability is coming.”
Claims
The Plaintiff made the following claims under the defamation lawsuit against Berlin:
Count One – Libel Per Se: The First 34 Pages of the Pitch
On or before February 24, 2003, Berlin crafted the Pitch to secure payments for fake reports containing false, derogatory data about Chandler. Around that date, Berlin privately sent the Pitch to Eringer. Only Berlin and Eringer had copies until November 2017, when Eringer sent the first 34 pages of the Pitch and the Eringer Report to the media. As a result, the British press began publishing false accusations from the Fake Dossier in May 2018. Prior to that, neither the Pitch nor the Eringer Report was publicly available.
Chandler regularly monitored the press for mentions of himself. He first learned of the false accusations of espionage and money laundering in November 2017, but he did not receive the Pitch or Eringer Report until May 2018. The first 34 pages of the Pitch contained several libelous accusations against Chandler, falsely claiming that he engaged in money laundering, organized crime, and conspiracy to commit tortious interference. The Pitch implicated Chandler through purported affiliations with unrelated companies, such as Bristol Sovereign and the Swiss Sovereign Companies.
The libelous statements specifically targeted Chandler, who was one of the two subjects named in the Pitch. These statements implied that he was involved with these unrelated companies, which were falsely accused of criminal activities. Berlin intended readers to understand the libelous statements concerning Chandler, and this was how they were perceived. The statements were libelous per se because they falsely suggested criminal offenses that harmed Chandler’s social standing. Ultimately, the libelous statements were false; Chandler and his brother never engaged in money laundering, organized crime, or conspiracy to commit tortious interference, either directly or indirectly.
Count Two – Libel Per Se: The Additional Pages of the Pitch
Although he learned of the false accusations of espionage and money laundering in November 2017, he did not receive the first 34 pages of the Pitch, the Eringer Report, or the Fake Dossier until May 2018. He had not obtained a copy of the Additional Pages, which, on information and belief, were also not publicly available.
The Additional Pages contained several libelous accusations against Chandler, claiming he engaged in money laundering, organized crime, and Russian espionage. These accusations were made directly and through false associations with unrelated companies. The statements in the Additional Pages specifically targeted Chandler, who was one of the two subjects identified. The documents repeatedly named him and falsely labeled him as the owner or affiliate of the unrelated companies implicated in criminal activities. Berlin intended for readers to understand these statements as concerning Chandler, and this understanding was reflected in public perception.
Furthermore, the Additional Pages appeared to have influenced the false statements in the Eringer Report, indicating that Eringer recognized their relevance to Chandler and his brother. These statements were libelous per se, as they falsely imputed serious offenses that harmed Chandler’s social standing.
Defense
Defendants Donald Berlin, Investigative Consultants, Inc. (an Illinois corporation), and Instigative Consultants, Inc. of Washington, D.C. (a Wisconsin corporation), collectively referred to as the “ICI Companies” or “Defendants,” denied the allegations of defamation and libel. In their response, they argued that the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Furthermore, the Defendants asserted that Chandler’s claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations outlined in District of Columbia Code § 12-301(4). They also contended that Chandler’s claim for punitive damages was partially or wholly prohibited by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Additionally, the Defendants claimed that, since Chandler was a public figure, his claims should be dismissed. They argued that they did not act with malice in their actions.
Jury Verdict
In September of 2023, the Court granted Chandler’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the allegations were both false and defamatory as a matter of law. This means that the allegations were unquestionably baseless and entirely false. “Berlin simply drafted a report that was a wholesale fabrication,” the court wrote. After the federal court evaluated the evidence, it determined that the allegations were false.
The jury in Washington, D.C., was tasked with determining whether Berlin acted with the necessary level of fault when making his false accusations. If the jury found fault, they would then decide the amount of damages to which Chandler was entitled.
After a six-day trial, an eight-person jury reached a unanimous conclusion. The jury found that the investigator responsible for the dossier either knew the truth or recklessly disregarded it regarding Chandler.
The jury awarded Plaintiff Christopher Chandler $4 million in defamation damages on Monday, October 21, 2024. The following day, Tuesday, October 22, 2024, the jury granted an additional award of $4,000,001 in punitive damages, as indicated by the verdict forms in the case.
As a result, they awarded Chandler a total of $8,000,001 in compensatory and punitive damages. The $8,000,001 award is the second-largest defamation verdict ever returned in Washington, D.C.
Court Documents:
Available upon request
Leave A Comment