Epstein Secrets

ponsible for arranging, structuring and marketing the firm's credit-backed CDO and CLO transactions in excess of $5 billion. Before joining UBS, Ms. Hubbell spent 17 years at Credit Suisse where she ran the CDO Group which developed many of the first CDOs for a variety of asset classes including high yiel

r holds the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst (CAIA) designation. Gina Hubbell — Managing Director, Structuring and Product Development Ms. Hubbell joined Guggenheim in August 2010 with a focus on developing structured transactions and investment products for the firm and its clients. Previously,

s to 1985, Mr. Mitchell was with Bear Stearns and Oppenheimer & Co. Mr. Mitchell has served as an officer and/

n the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain i

to disclosure at the instant discovery stage. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s a

ar on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

t patterns have asked whether the government was aware of the documents’ existence apart from any actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s argument that it was a foregone conclusion that the defendant possessed “ordinary business records.”

ar on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

n the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain i

bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

ances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly aut

ear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

ing assertions of fact or belief, because the creation of those documents was not 'compelled' within the meaning of the privilege? United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain instances, "'the act of production' itself may implicitly communicate 'statements of fact."' Id. Fo

to disclosure at the instant discovery stage. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340. 352 (1978).

ng assertions of fact or belief, because the creation of those documents was not 'compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain instances, "'the act of production' itself may implicitly communicate 'statements of fact.' Id. For

bear on any issue that is or may be in the case? Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

tion does not extend to documents whose existence is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; United States 1. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States I. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, while the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the ac

to disclosure at the instant discovery stage. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. I. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).