Epstein Secrets

r, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

federal courts [to] 'incorporat[e] [state law ] as the federal rule of decision." • Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Kimball Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979)). Second, application of state substantive law directly on point is eminently more

er, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

"federal courts [to] 'incorporat[e] [state law ] as the federal rule of decision."' Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Kimball Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979)). Second, application of state substantive law directly on point is eminently more l

er, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

"federal courts [to] 'incorporat[e] [state law ] as the federal rule of decision." ' Kamen, 500 U.S. at 98 (emphasis added) (quoting United States I Kimball Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979)). Second, application of state substantive law directly on point is eminently more l