Back to Network
6
Shared Docs
6
Same-Page
6 / 6
Mentions
Document Mentions (6 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
istrict Court for the Southern District of Florida with a marine contractor. • In 2010, a case brought by a contractor against Mr. Epstein in the Virgin Islands Superior Court was dismissed and referred to Arbitration, which the contractor determined not to pursue. • In 2010, Mr. Epstein settled a sales contract dispute
been subject to an audit or a post audit penalty assessment by a tax authority (including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Service and/or the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue). Moreover, neither Mr. Epstein nor any of his controlled affiliates have ever been adjudged, either civilly or criminally, to be in violation of a
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
Arbitration. The contractor did not pursue the matter in Arbitration. • In 2010, Mr. Epstein successfully settled a sales contract dispute in the Virgin Islands Superior Court with a seller who refused to honor the sales agreement and counterclaimed against Mr. Epstein. • In 2011, Mr. Epstein and his company received a s
been subject to an audit or a post audit penalty assessment by a tax authority (including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Service and/or the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue). Moreover, neither Mr. Epstein nor any of his controlled affiliates have ever been adjudged, either civilly or criminally, to be in violation of a
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
Arbitration. The contractor did not pursue the matter in Arbitration. • In 2010, Mr. Epstein successfully settled a sales contract dispute in the Virgin Islands Superior Court with a seller who refused to honor the sales agreement and counterclaimed against Mr. Epstein. • In 2011, Mr. Epstein and his company received a s
been subject to an audit or a post audit penalty assessment by a tax authority (including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Service and/or the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue). Moreover, neither Mr. Epstein nor any of his controlled affiliates have ever been adjudged, either civilly or criminally, to be in violation of a
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
istrict Court for the Southern District of Florida with a marine contractor. • In 2010, a case brought by a contractor against Mr. Epstein in the Virgin Islands Superior Court was dismissed and referred to Arbitration, which the contractor determined not to pursue. • In 2010, Mr. Epstein settled a sales contract dispute
been subject to an audit or a post audit penalty assessment by a tax authority (including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Service and/or the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue). Moreover, neither Mr. Epstein nor any of his controlled affiliates have ever been adjudged, either civilly or criminally, to be in violation of a
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
Arbitration. The contractor did not pursue the matter in Arbitration. • In 2010, Mr. Epstein successfully settled a sales contract dispute in the Virgin Islands Superior Court with a seller who refused to honor the sales agreement and counterclaimed against Mr. Epstein. • In 2011, Mr. Epstein and his company received a s
been subject to an audit or a post audit penalty assessment by a tax authority (including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Service and/or the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue). Moreover, neither Mr. Epstein nor any of his controlled affiliates have ever been adjudged, either civilly or criminally, to be in violation of a
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
Arbitration. The contractor did not pursue the matter in Arbitration. • In 2010, Mr. Epstein successfully settled a sales contract dispute in the Virgin Islands Superior Court with a seller who refused to honor the sales agreement and counterclaimed against Mr. Epstein. • In 2011, Mr. Epstein and his company received a s
been subject to an audit or a post audit penalty assessment by a tax authority (including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Service and/or the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue). Moreover, neither Mr. Epstein nor any of his controlled affiliates have ever been adjudged, either civilly or criminally, to be in violation of a
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (25)
Entities connected to both Virgin Islands Superior Court and the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON10 w/ Virgin·7 w/ the
the Southern District
LOCATION10 w/ Virgin·6 w/ the
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION6 w/ Virgin·7 w/ the
Federal District Court
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Virgin·6 w/ the
Sarah Ferguson
PERSON6 w/ Virgin·6 w/ the
EK
Erika Kellerhals
PERSON6 w/ Virgin·6 w/ the
Financial Trust Company
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Virgin·6 w/ the
the Florida Circuit Court
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Virgin·6 w/ the
New York Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Virgin·6 w/ the
RTPark
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Virgin·6 w/ the
New York
LOCATION7 w/ Virgin·4 w/ the
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION5 w/ Virgin·4 w/ the
United States
LOCATION4 w/ Virgin·5 w/ the
Palm Beach
LOCATION4 w/ Virgin·4 w/ the
The Palm Beach Post
ORGANIZATION4 w/ Virgin·4 w/ the
Bear Stearns & Company
ORGANIZATION4 w/ Virgin·4 w/ the
the Virgin Islands Superior Court
LOCATION4 w/ Virgin·4 w/ the
KF
Kellehals Ferguson
PERSON4 w/ Virgin·4 w/ the
Central America
LOCATION4 w/ Virgin·4 w/ the
Protected Cell Company
ORGANIZATION2 w/ Virgin·2 w/ the