A four-word dismissal meets nine documented textual matches. If this goes to litigation, discovery could be the most expensive sentence Bloomberg’s outside counsel ever wrote.
When the subject of a five-month Bloomberg Tax investigation presented the news organization’s outside counsel with a detailed forensic analysis showing that the reporter’s questions had been copied, in some cases word for word, from an anonymous opposition research document, Bloomberg’s lawyer responded with four words.
“You are simply mistaken.”
That was the entirety of Jeremy Chase’s substantive engagement with a 10-page Source Compromise Analysis containing nine side-by-side textual comparisons between an anonymous, unsigned document and the questions posed by Bloomberg Tax reporter Michael Bologna over a five-month investigation of Solidaris Capital LLC. Two of the nine comparisons are verbatim. Chase, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP who represents Bloomberg Industry Group, did not identify which comparison was mistaken. He did not explain the word-for-word matches. He did not deny the anonymous white paper exists. He did not address the credibility of Bologna’s sources. He offered a conclusion without analysis.
What Chase did say, perhaps more significantly, is this: “It was not and is not the intention of Mr. Bologna or INDG to accuse Solidaris of violating any particular statute, regulation or code section.”
That sentence may prove to be the most consequential admission in the entire correspondence.
The Evidence Chase Dismissed
Solidaris Capital, a tax planning firm that facilitates charitable deduction investment programs, filed a formal complaint with the United States Senate Finance Committee on March 16, 2026, accompanied by a Source Compromise Analysis that its counsel, Timothy Parlatore of Parlatore Law Group, transmitted to Bloomberg’s editorial leadership. The analysis presents nine textual comparisons between an anonymous document titled “Understanding the Dietrich Charitable Deduction Investment Scheme” and questions Bologna sent to Solidaris and its business partners between August 2025 and March 2026.
The anonymous document, which uses a cartoon devil emoji to depict Solidaris’s founder and calls him a “tax shelter guru” who is “spitting in the face of the American taxpayer,” cites the First Amended Counterclaim filed by Head Genetics, Inc. in Dallas County litigation with paragraph-level footnotes. Head Genetics is a defendant in that litigation, subject to a Temporary Restraining Order that froze over $60 million in funds and remains in force.
The following comparisons are drawn from Solidaris’s Source Compromise Analysis:
1. Bulk Licensing Terms (VERBATIM)
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| “…bulk purchase of IP licenses at a price at least 94% less than ‘retail,’ as long as IP Seller agrees not to sell any IP to anyone else for less than retail for at least 5 years“ | “…buy bulk IP licenses at a price ‘at least 94% less than retail,’ as long as IP seller agrees not to sell any IP to anyone else for less than retail for at least 5 years’” | 3/11/26 |
Analysis: Word-for-word identical. Bologna attributed this language to a “Senate whistleblower complaint.” The same language appears in the anonymous white paper, which cites Head Genetics’ own counterclaim.
2. “Effectively Guaranteed” 5x Return (VERBATIM)
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| “a 5x valuation increase that is effectively guaranteed in video presentations” | “you ‘effectively guarantee’ investors…a tax deduction of five times their initial investment” | 3/11/26 |
Analysis: The phrase “effectively guaranteed” is a coined characterization. It appears in the white paper. It appears in Bologna’s question. It does not appear in Solidaris’s own materials, which state the opposite.
3. Fee Structure Allegation
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| “Almost 65% of the $200 million went directly to…Geoffrey Dietrich and his affiliates” | “approximately 62% of funds” / “75% of every dollar raised is eaten up” | 10/10/25 |
Analysis: Both conflate payments to unrelated third-party service providers with Solidaris’s compensation. An independent investigation would distinguish between them.
4. 20x Valuation Characterization
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| “a valuation of 20 times the price paid” | “allegations of a ‘20X multiple’” | 10/10/25 |
Analysis: Same multiplier. Both characterize the ordinary difference between wholesale acquisition cost and appraised fair market value as “inflation.”
5. Attack on the Appraiser
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| “a one-person shop as no legitimate appraisal firm would provide such outrageous valuations” | “Your background appears to be in machinery and industrial equipment. In what regard are you qualified?” | 10/7/25 |
Analysis: The white paper identified the appraiser as the vulnerability. Bologna’s questions to the appraiser follow the identical attack vector: qualifications, volume, compensation.
6. Spizzirri/Colors4Kids Family Connection
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| Footnote 4: “in Color4Kids, IP Seller is the father of the tax opinion writer“ | “Paul Spizzirri stands to profit from Colors4Kids based on his relationship to Spizzirri Creative“ | 10/10/25 |
Analysis: A footnote-level detail in the white paper becomes a question from the reporter. The specificity of the match is difficult to attribute to coincidence.
7. Pricing Restrictions as “Market Manipulation”
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| “…not to sell the IP for less than ‘retail amount’…clear evidence of valuation manipulation“ | “…prohibiting technology sellers from selling below ‘full retail value’…thereby manipulating fair market value?” | 10/10/25 |
Analysis: The word “manipulation” is an editorial characterization. The white paper coined it. Bologna adopted it.
8. SCET Comparison Framework
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| Central framework comparing Solidaris to Syndicated Conservation Easement Transactions | “Former IRS contacts” coined “syndicated non-cash charitable contributions of digital technology“ | 10/7/25 |
Analysis: The SCET comparison is a specific rhetorical choice, not an inevitable analytical framework. Bologna’s unnamed sources replicated it independently. The probability of independent origination is low.
9. Counterclaim Cited as Independent Evidence
| Anonymous White Paper | Bologna’s Questions | Date |
| Cites Head Genetics’ counterclaim ¶¶ 74-78, 79 as established fact | “We reviewed the counterclaim against Solidaris filed by Head Genetics“ | 10/10/25 |
Analysis: The white paper’s author cited their own litigation filing as if it were an independent source. The reporter admitted reviewing the same filing.
Nine matches. Two verbatim. Chase addressed none of them.
The Admission That Changes Everything
Chase’s letter contains a sentence that Solidaris’s litigation counsel is likely already framing for a complaint: “It was not and is not the intention of Mr. Bologna or INDG to accuse Solidaris of violating any particular statute, regulation or code section.”
On its face, that is a reasonable statement about the scope of a journalistic investigation. Reporters are not prosecutors. They are not required to allege specific statutory violations in order to report on business practices that raise questions.
But Solidaris has alleged, in correspondence and in its Senate Finance Committee complaint, that Bologna told third parties that what Solidaris is doing is “illegal,” that Solidaris “will be investigated” by the IRS, and that charity partners have “been manipulated.” Solidaris says a credible source with direct, firsthand knowledge confirmed these statements.
If those allegations are true, Bloomberg now has a problem that Chase’s letter made worse, not better. Bloomberg’s own outside counsel has confirmed, in writing, that the article was never intended to accuse Solidaris of violating a specific law. If Bologna separately told third parties that Solidaris is operating illegally, the gap between what the article says and what the reporter said becomes the foundation of an actual malice claim. The reporter’s pre-publication statements exceeded what his own organization’s counsel says the reporting was intended to support.
Why Discovery Could Be Devastating
Media defamation cases are typically won or lost on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. The defendant argues that the plaintiff cannot meet the actual malice standard, the court agrees, and the case ends before discovery. That procedural posture is what makes media litigation manageable for news organizations. Discovery is where it becomes unmanageable.
If Solidaris files suit and survives the initial motion, which the Second Circuit’s decision in Palin v. New York Times Co. suggests is increasingly possible on circumstantial evidence, Bloomberg faces a discovery process in which the following materials would likely be subject to production:
Bologna’s source files. Every document Bologna received, from every source, including the anonymous white paper if he possesses it. If the white paper is in his files, the source compromise analysis is proven. If it is not in his files but his questions match it verbatim, the question becomes who briefed him from it.
Bologna’s communications with sources. Every email, text message, Signal message, and phone log with the individuals Solidaris has identified as the apparent filers of the anonymous complaints. If Bologna communicated with Bianchi, Maclaren, Gallo, Scott, or their representatives, the independence of his investigation collapses.
The editorial chain. Every communication between Bologna and his editors, including Gregory Henderson, about the sourcing of the story, the decision to rely on the anonymous complaints, the decision to refuse Solidaris’s background briefing, and the decision to publish after receiving the Source Compromise Analysis. Internal emails in which editors discuss the white paper, the verbatim matches, or the Parlatore letter would be particularly significant.
The “former IRS attorneys.” The identities of the unnamed former IRS officials who Bologna says reviewed Solidaris’s materials and rendered opinions. If those individuals received the white paper or were briefed from it, their “independent” opinions are not independent. If they are connected to Head Genetics or its associates, the entire expert validation layer of Bologna’s story falls apart.
The whistleblower complaints themselves. Bloomberg says Bologna reviewed copies of the complaints. Discovery would establish who provided them to him and when. If the complaints were provided by the same individuals or attorneys who authored the white paper, the closed-loop corroboration Solidaris alleges is proven.
Communications with Davis Wright Tremaine. While some communications may be protected by attorney-client privilege, the scope of that protection in a case where the client’s pre-publication conduct is at issue is narrower than news organizations typically assume. Chase’s letters themselves, including the “simply mistaken” response, are not privileged. They are evidence of Bloomberg’s state of mind after receiving the source compromise evidence and before publishing.
For Bloomberg, the cost of discovery is not just financial. It is reputational. Every internal email about this story, every editorial discussion about whether to publish after receiving Parlatore’s letter, every conversation about the verbatim matches, becomes part of the public record. News organizations settle media defamation cases specifically to avoid this exposure. Chase’s four-word dismissal of the source compromise evidence, if it reflects the depth of Bloomberg’s actual review, will not age well in front of a jury.
The Four-Word Problem
In a defamation case, the standard for actual malice is whether the defendant published “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Reckless disregard has been defined by the Supreme Court as a “high degree of awareness of probable falsity” and by the Second Circuit as a “purposeful avoidance of the truth.”
A four-word dismissal of documented, verbatim textual evidence of source compromise, followed by publication, is the kind of evidence that gets past a motion to dismiss. It is the kind of evidence that survives summary judgment. And it is the kind of evidence that a jury remembers.
“You are simply mistaken” is not a defense. It is a decision. And decisions have consequences.
