Epstein Secrets

equent correspondence to the Fund. Jeepers's current version of events also relies upon inconsistent and unreliable testimony from Mr. Epstein, Mr. Beller, and Mr. Dubin. At his deposition, Mr. Epstein testified both that he expected to be paid "immediately" after making his request and that he expect

d above, e-mails from the same day the of the November 13, 2006 fax clearly indicate that the Fund explained the lock-up schedule to Mr. Epstein and Harry Beller, Mr. Epstein's accountant, who sent the withdrawal request. (See Exhibit J at HCMARB_00000049; Exhibit K at HCMARB_00000052.) Jeepers has offered n

requires "enforce[ment of] the objectively reasonable interpretation that emerges." United Rentals, Inc. v. RAM Holdings, Inc., 937 A.2d 810, 835 (Del. Ch. 2007). As we now discuss, if the Arbitrator examines the LPA from the perspective of a third person with any knowledge of hedge funds, the practic

(Del. Ch. 1992) 48, 49 AT&T Corp. v. Lillis, 953 A.2d 241 (Del. 2008) 30 BASF Corp. v. POSM H Props. P'ship, LP, 09 Civ. 3608, 2009 WL 522721 (Del. Ch. March 3, 2009) 36 Chrysler Corp. v. Chaplake Holdings, Ltd., 822 A.2d 1024 (Del. 2003) 42 Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 603 A.2d 818 (Del. 1

irn explained that FTC's investments were subject to two-year rolling lock-ups. Mr. Zwim then informed Mr. Dubin by email that he had spoken to Mr. Beller about "the facts of lock-ups." Mr. Zwim and Mr. Lee, then DBZ's Acting CFO, obtained and reviewed redemption schedules from DBZ's Investor Relation

aw all of FTC's investments during these conversations; in fact, he did not. II EFTA00613918 H. FTC's Liquidation Demand On November 13, 2006, Harry Beller, an accountant at FTC, called Mr. Zwim. They discussed when FTC's investments could be redeemed. Mr. Zwirn explained that FTC's investments were su

Conclusion 31 EFTA00613905 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES A.R. DeMarco Enters., Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Page(s) 2002 WL 31820970 (Del. Ch. Nov. 26, 2002) 29 Anglo Amen Sec. Fund, L.P. v. S.R. Global Int'! Fund, L.P., 2006 WL 1494360 (Del. Ch. May 24, 2006) 20 BAE Sys. N. Am. Inc. v

ake from anyone of course"; Mr. Dubin: "of course"), the e-mail transmittal note accompanying the Side Letter itself, (E-mail from Heath Weisberg to Harry Beller, Ex. B at I) ("Attached please find the side note relating to [FTC's] January I, 2005 investment in [the Fund]."), as well as the testimony of Fund

1997). A court determines whether an interpretation is "reasonable" from the perspective of a third party. Dittrick v. Chalfant, 948 A.2d 400, 406 (Del. Ch. 2007) ("[If] a reasonable third party would be unable to determine the meaning of certain contractual provisions, the agreement is considered ambi