Epstein Secrets

ated in any way with M, asserting instead that Epstein merely "had contacts at M." FAC ¶ 60. Such bare allegations are insufficient. Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Es

identified separately in the complaint," its application is "limited to group-published documents," and "does not apply to oral statements"); In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1216592, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017) ("the Court has doubt whether the group-pleading doctrine remains good law"). Defendants

the ability "to have Plaintiff admitted to' For example, the Complaint fails to allege that Epstein was associated in any way wit Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Est

identified separately in the complaint," its application is "limited to group-published documents," and "does not apply to oral statements"); In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1216592, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017) ("the Court has doubt whether the group-pleading doctrine remains good law"). A small sa

bility "to have Plaintiff admitted to" . For example, the Complaint fails to allege that Epstein was associated in any way with . Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Est

identified separately in the complaint," its application is "limited to group-published documents," and "does not apply to oral statements"); In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1216592, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017) ("the Court has doubt whether the group-pleading doctrine remains good law"). The Compla