Epstein Secrets

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 APPEARANCES: ROBERT B. CARNEY, SPECIAL MASTER BERGER SINGERMAN, by CHARLES H. LICHTMAN, ESQUIRE On behalf of Herbert Stettin, Chapter 11 Trustee CONRAD & SCHERER, by JAMES D. SILVER, ESQUIRE On behalf of Razorback Funding FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHR

ause if the trustee believed that -- THE COURT: There's no litigation pending. MR. FARMER: That we -- Edwards and LM have not been sued -- I mean, Lichtman's been sued, Adler. People have been brought in by the trustee because they've found evidence that they believe constitutes some wrongful conduct,

nts are held by the trustee now, and so Mr. Stettin was concerned that there may be some privilege issues on those documents, and as a result, Mr. Lichtman and the attorneys came forward before this Court and requested that there be a master appointed to help resolve this issue, and ultimately, I beca

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 PROCEEDINGS THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. STETTIN: Good afternoon, Judge. Herbert Stettin, the court-appointed receiver and chief restructuring officer in this. First thing I would like to report to the Court — and I know you had expres

n on this matter, having spoken with him 20 numerous times about numerous other matters, to 21 speak either with him or with his counsel 22 Mr. Lichtman. I did have the opportunity to speak 23 with Mr. Coffey on Friday. 24 !can, if it would assist the Coun, proffer 25 to the Court and, if necess

Johnson on 11/13/2009. (sa) (Entered: 11/16/2009) 11/16/2009 409 RESPONSE to Motion re 405 MOTION Order for the preservation of evidence filed by Herbert Stettin. Replies due by 11/27/2009. (Lichtman. Charles) (Entered: 11/16/2009) 11/16/2009 410 RESPONSE/REPLY Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe

009) 11/16/2009 409 RESPONSE to Motion re 405 MOTION Order for the preservation of evidence filed by Herbert Stettin. Replies due by 11/27/2009. (Lichtman. Charles) (Entered: 11/16/2009) 11/16/2009 410 RESPONSE/REPLY Epstein's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective Order as