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

i- rected activities where defendant delivered products into stream of commerce with ex- pectation they would be purchased by resi- dents of forum); Calder, 465 U.S. at 789- 90, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (fording publishing ac- tivities outside of forum were calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in forum where

m, and the litigation results from al- leged injuries that arise out of or related to those activities"). Pursuant to the hold- ings in Thayer King, Calder, and three recent terrorism cases—Rein v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 995 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.N.Y.1998), Daliberti v. Republic of Ira

a Senior Managing Director and Head of Investor Relations and Business Development for the Real Estate group. Before joining Blackstone in 2007, Mr. Casey worked at Cliffivood Partners LLC from 1998 to 2007, where he was the President of the firm. Prior to joining Cliffwood Partners LLC, he was a Mana

not necessarily be taken into account if Blackstone were not a public company. Legal Representation. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Maples and Calder will act as counsel to the Partnership, the General Partner, and the Investment Advisor in connection with this offering of Interests, and represen

Deloitte & Touche I.I.P. U.S. Counsel for the Partnership and General Partner: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Cayman Counsel for the Maples and Calder. Partnership and General Partner: ER305378-MAXWELL Blackstone Real Estate Partners Europe V 41 CONFIDENTIAL UBSTERRAMAR00001888 EFTA00237519

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

nt took ‘intentional * * * tortious, actions’ and ‘knew that the brunt of th[e] injury would be felt’ in the *15 foreign forum.” Jd. at *19, (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-790 (1984)). Even so, the United States argued that the questions presented by the Petition did not warrant review by the

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

minimum contacts existed since dispute arose from a contract with substantial con- tacts with the forum) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (finding personal juris- diction appropriate over non-resident de- fendants who “e

tates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may rely on their “purposefully directed” theory to establish these mini- mum contacts. But as existed in Burger King, Calder, and the three terrorism cases, Plaintiffs must allege some personal or direct involvement by the Defendants in the conduct giving rise to their clai