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

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. Davison also during that period represented that Citibank had "done their due diligence" and w

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%"

F.34 at 1422). In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct "constituted the mak- ing of fraudulent misrepresentations ... regarding the AIG Investment" that the defendants knew were materially mislead- ing "because of their failure to state or disclose the additional or qualifying infor- mation re

d rapidly deteriorating." (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss, Epstein Decl.1120.) According to the plaintiffs, FTC's advisors contacted Davison and other employees of Citibank. and requested Citibank's help in coordinating the replacement of the AIG fund's manager. (Id. 121; Schantz Declif 5

the Amended 1999 Note. (Id. Ex. A at 8-9; Ex. B at 7-8; Ex. D at 10; Ex. Eat 2-3.) Sometime in the spring of 2001, Epstein and FTC discovered that the AIG Investment was "suddenly and rapidly deteriorating." (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss, Epstein Decl.1120.) According to the plaintiffs, FTC's ad

plaintiffs, however, shall have THIRTY DAYS within which to file an amended complaint with respect to these counts. FOOTNOTES 1. Sometime in 2000, Davison informed Epstein about a second, similar investment fund to be managed by Mass Mutual [the "Mass Mutual Fund']. On June 15, 2000, Epstein borrowed a

14 F.3d at 1422). In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct "constituted the making of fraudulent misrepresentations ... regarding the AIG Investment" that the defendants knew were materially misleading "because of their failure to state or disclose the additional or qualifying information regardi

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 [hisj investment, with a possible return of as much as 30%" a

the Amended 1999 Note. (Id. Ex. A at 8-9: Ex. B at 7-8: Ex. D at 10; Ex. Eat 2-3.) Sometime in the spring of 2001, Epstein and FTC discovered that the AIG Investment was "suddenly and rapidly deteriorating." (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss, Epstein Decl. ¶ 20.) According to the plaintiffs, FTC's a

plaintiffs, however, shall have THIRTY DAYS within which to file an amended complaint with respect to these counts. FOOTNOTES 1. Sometime in 2000, Davison informed Epstein about a second, similar investment fund to be managed by Mass Mutual CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0087

14 F.3d at 1422). In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct "constituted the making of fraudulent misrepresentations ... regarding the AIG Investment" that the defendants knew were materially misleading "because of their failure to state or disclose the additional or qualifying information regardi

plaintiffs seek rescission of the promissory note and punitive damages (Counts VI and VII). (Am. Compl. III 45-68.) In April 1999, Dayle 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

he Amended 1999 Note. (Id. Ex. A at 8-9; Ex. B at 7-8; Ex. D at 10; Ex. E at 2-3.) Sometime in the spring of 2001, Epstein and FTC discovered that the AIG Investment was "suddenly and rapidly deteriorating." (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss, Epstein Decl. 1 20.) According to the plaintiffs, FTC's a

o introduce him to an "exceptional investment opportunity." (Compl. 9f 13.) In follow-up telephone conversations during that same two week period, Davison and her associates made additional specific representations about the AIG Investment, without disclosing Citibank and AIG's relationship. Davison a

) In follow-up telephone conversations during that same two week period, Davison and her associates made additional specific representations about the AIG Investment, without disclosing Citibank and AIG's relationship. Davison also during that period represented that Citibank had "done their due diligence" and