Epstein Secrets

parties' written and oral arguments, I will deny the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to transfer this case to New York. Further, I find that the amended complaint adequately states claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. Finally, I will g

claims, and instead shall look to Virgin Islands law to determine whether the plaintiffs have stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. New York's 'Martin Act Does Not Apply to this Lawsuit The defendants aver that the Martin Act, New York General Business section 352 et seq., bars the plainti

York Attorney General to investigate and prosecute violations of the Act. The Martin Act does not, however, provide for a private cause of action. See Nairobi Holdings Ltd. v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., Civ. No. 2002-1230, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16995 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2002) ("(Ilt is well established that the

ms related to the Mass Mutual Fund, they have not yet done so. (See Pls' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss at 12 n. 12.) 2. The Martin Act is New York's blue sky law. General Business Law section 352-c prohibits various fraudulent and deceitful practices in the distribution, exchange, sale and purcha

w York Attorney General to investigate and prosecute violations of the Act. The Martin Act does not, however, provide for a private cause of action. See Nairobi Holdings Ltd. v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., Civ. No.2002-1230, 2002 WL 31027550, '4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16995 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2002) Cult is well es

s related to the Mass Mutual Fund, they have not yet done so. (See Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss at 12 n. 12.) 2. The Martin Act is New York's blue sky law. General Business Law section 352-c prohibits various fraudulent and deceitful practices in the distribution, exchange, sale and purcha

w York Attorney General to investigate and prosecute violations of the Act. The Martin Act does not, however, provide for a private cause of action. See Nairobi Holdings Ltd. v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co., Civ. No.2002-1230, 2002 WL 31027550, '4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16995 at 10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2002) ("(in is well es