Epstein Secrets

ended to exercise his right of first refusal and renew the lease. Epstein contends that in a telephone conference between Richard Massey of OFM and Jeffrey Schantz, Epstein's transaction counsel, on April 19, 1996, OFM orally consented to Epstein's request to sublet the Premises to Fisher. The same day, Epstein

"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

ended to exercise his right of first refusal and renew the lease. Epstein contends that in a telephone conference between Richard Massey of OFM and Jeffrey Schantz, Epstein's transaction counsel, on April 19, 1996, OFM orally consented to Epstein's request to sublet the Premises to Fisher. The same day, Epstein

"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

ended to exercise his right of first refusal and renew the lease. Epstein contends that in a telephone conference between Richard Massey of OFM and Jeffrey Schantz, Epstein's transaction counsel, on April 19, 1996, OFM orally consented to Epstein's request to sublet the Premises to Fisher. The same day, Epstei

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