Epstein Secrets

attery. Actions were consoliclab ed by Multiclistrict Litigation Panel. Vari- ous defendants fded motions to dismiss. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that (1) jurisdictional discovery was warranted on issue whether Saudi Arabian bank was immune under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

under actual or apparent au- thority, or color of law, of any foreign nation subjects an individual to torture or extrajudicial killing." Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F.Supp.2d 132, 141 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (citing Flores, 343 F.3d at 153); 28 U.S.C. 1350 note. Only individuals maybe sued under the TVPA. Arndt,

etomilaral pØ Orly Ratan' and val...t poKentad Ina proed.] by the morn fen UPS Shred Strews is not resprstas fa the Manden ad don ret quasar es Casey. tete reelt av not panted by WC a the Fans eakenentel SK ~ewe • Revenue sharing end additånal cernweenation - M ~into ~awnen lain and I :h.l km r

ASPIEL • Cad/ and money balances may include avaiable cash balances, UBS Bank USA deposit account UBS FDIC insured Deposit Program Bank accounts, UBS AG Stamford Branch deposit account balances and money market mutual bald sweep balances. See the important nkirmadon about )ow statement on the last

he cash wt be deposited in yOur account The dvidend renvelrant pace %opted bLre truer may offer hem the Mallet Viet at Mach pant* Shire, ore sold Casey:With Or whok was may be held •-• you accout. If you are traded Tesoro& ail a a result of a divided payment a rinse, the Fen eel either sell petal

accounts at UBS AG StanfordBranch and shams of MooryFuxt are net road by the FDIC. Through the DA, cash balances am swept to deposit accounts at UBS AG New WW1 Brarra ad UBS AG Carnal Branch. These deposits are not insured byte FDIC. Balances held at tie LES AG Cayman Branch are temp:only noosed t

battery. Actions were consolidat- ed by Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Vari- ous defendants filed motions to dismiss. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: (1) jurisdictional discovery was warranted on issue whether Saudi Arabian bank was immune under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FS

o, under actual or apparent au- thority, or color of law, of any foreign nation subjects an individual to torture or extrajudicial killing.” Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F.Supp.2d 182, 141 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (citing Flores, 343 F.3d at 153); 28 U.S.C. § 13850 note. Only individuals maybe sued under the TVPA. Arndt, 3

t of Corr. Servs., 435 F. App’x 52 (2d Cir, 2011) eceeccesescscsnescescsneecescsnsecescsnseeesesnseeessseseeesesnseeesnseseersnseseeeensess Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F. Supp. 2d 132 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) .......... Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 8. Ct. 1937 (2009) ..eeceecseseceesseeeeeteesteeeeee Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 65

STLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023373 --- PAGE BREAK --- In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) On January 18, 2005, Judge Casey issued his decision in Terrorist Attacks I, dismissing claims against, inter alia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and several Saudi Princes on sovereign