Epstein Secrets

n to introduce him to an "exceptional investment opportunity." (Compl. P 13.) In follow-up telephone conversations during that same two week period, Davison and her associates r 5] made additional specific representations about the AIG Investment, without disclosing Citibank and AIG's relationship. Davi

)(6) for the breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation claims, and counts I, II, III and VI of the first amended complaint failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. I did, however, grant the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Financial Trust Co. v. Citibank,

naged by MG. (Compl. 1112, 24; Epstein Decl. 118-10; Davison Aft 11 1, 102-18.) According to the plaintiffs, during the negotiations of this deal Davison represented to Epstein that he was "virtually assured of receiving an 18-20% return on [his] investment, with a possible return of as much as 80%"

fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. Finally, I will grant the defendants' motion to dis- miss Counts I, II, III, and VI for failure to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirement for fraud, but I will grant leave for the plain- tiffs to amend their pleadings. I. FACTUAL AND

e plaintiffs seek rescission of the promissory note and punitive damages (Counts VI and VII). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 45-68.) In April 1999, Dsyle Davison ["Davison"], Vice President of Citibank in New York and Epstein's private banker, and other Citibank employees telephoned Epstein while he was in the Virgin I

of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. Finally, I will grant the defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, II, Ill, and VI for failure to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirement for fraud, but I will grant leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings. I. FACTUAL AND PROC