Epstein Secrets

non-material accounting irregularities. Zwirn claims it was on advice of counsel. JEE speaks to Dubin, Zwirn and Zwirn's counsel (Harry Davis from Schulte Roth) about lie and JEE again demands to redeem FTC's entire investment in the Fund. At this time, it is explained that Zwirn is trying to avoid a run o

ment is dated as of January 1, 2004, but makes some reference to Highbridge sale, so we believe and Davis Polk confirms it was signed later (though Davis Polk could or would not say when). Advisory Agreement contains provisions similar to those provided in August 1, 2003 1 EFTA00722296 employment/trans

on the incentive fee portion of the fee). Agreement is dated as of January 1, 2004, but makes some reference to Highbridge sale, so we believe and Davis Polk confirms it was signed later (though Davis Polk could or would not say when). Advisory Agreement contains provisions similar to those provided in A

me by Zwirn caused me to send an additional notice in February 2007 demanding redemption of my entire investment EFTA00729346 • In March 2007, Schulte Roth informed me that both my November 2006 and February 2007 redemption requests were denied. As I have stated previously, Schulte Roth claimed that my

n that Zwirn had previously refused to give you an accounting even though you are a partner. Is this still true? At the January 22, 2009 meeting at Davis Polk, Kirkland tells me that they were provided only sketchy information as to a breakdown of the direct or indirect interests in the Funds' general par

tations made to me by Zwirn caused me to send an additional notice in February 2007 demanding redemption of my entire investment • In March 2007, Schulte Roth informed me that both my November 2006 and February 2007 redemption requests were denied. As I have stated previously, Schulte Roth claimed that my

tion that Zwirn had previously refused to give you an accounting, though you are a partner. Is this still true. At the January 22, 2009 meeting at Davis Polk, we were provided only sketchy information as to a breakdown of the direct or indirect interests in the Funds' general partner and manager after Ma

tations made to me by Zwirn caused me to send an additional notice in February 2007 demanding redemption of my entire investment • In March 2007, Schulte Roth informed me that both my November 2006 and February 2007 redemption requests were denied. As I have stated previously, Schulte Roth claimed that my

tion that Zwirn had previously refused to give you an accounting, though you are a partner. Is this still true. At the January 22, 2009 meeting at Davis Polk, we were provided only sketchy information as to a breakdown of the direct or indirect interests in the Funds' general partner and manager after Ma

Cozen O'Connor Crowe & Dunlevy Crowell & Moring Crowley Fleck Cullen & Dykman Curtis Mallet-Prevost DLA Piper Davis & Gilbert Davis Graham Davis Polk Davis Wright Tremaine Day Pitney Debevoise & Plimpton Dechert Dentons Desai Law Firm PC Dickie McCamey Dickinson Wright Dilworth Paxson Din

aw Roetzel & Andress Ropers Majeski Ropes & Gray Rutan & Tucker Sandberg Phoenix Sanford Heisler Saul Ewing Schiff Hardin Schnader Harrison Schulte Roth Schwabe Williamson Schwegman Lundberg Segal McCambridge Seward & Kissel Seyfarth Shaw Shearman & Sterling Sheppard Mullin Sherman & Howard S

tts Bernstein Litowitz Bracewell LLP Bramnick Law CMBG3 Law Clayman & Rosenberg Conn Kavanaugh Crowell & Moring D'Agostino Levine DLA Piper Davis Polk Eckert Seamans Epstein Becker Green Fenwick & West Foley & Lardner Gibson Dunn Goodwin Procter Govemo Law Firm EFTA00032691 --- PAGE BREAK

Cotton Mukasey Frenchman Paul Weiss Pierce Bainbridge Quinn Emanuel Richards Layton Rimon PC Robins Kaplan Rosenberg & Estis Salvi Schostok Schulte Roth Sheppard Mullin Smith Duggan Stroock & Stroock Thompson Hine Wiggin and Dana Wilmer Hale Wilson Sonsini Wolf Haldenstein Young Conaway COMP