Epstein Secrets

tments Owner, LLC v. Einery Bay PKI, LLC, 2009 WL 1124451 (Del. Ch. Apr. 20, 2009) 27 Beck & Panico Builders, Inc. v. Strairman, 2009 WL 5177160 (Del. Super. Nov. 23, 2009) 21, 22 Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Leveraged Equity Fund II, LP, 624 A.2d 1199 (Del. 1993) lotea. Commcins, Inc. v. D

d (4) the Court can only avoid injustice by finding that the promise is binding." Beck & Panico Builders, Inc. v. Straitman, 2009 WL 5177160, at *6 (Del. Super. Nov. 23, 2009). 21 EFTA00613928 On the other hand, if Your Honor determines that FTC had a right to withdraw all of its investments at the end

Conclusion 31 EFTA00613905 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES A.R. DeMarco Enters., Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Page(s) 2002 WL 31820970 (Del. Ch. Nov. 26, 2002) 29 Anglo Amen Sec. Fund, L.P. v. S.R. Global Int'! Fund, L.P., 2006 WL 1494360 (Del. Ch. May 24, 2006) 20 BAE Sys. N. Am. Inc. v

s, Inc., 954 A.2d 335 (Del. Ch. 2008) 30 Lazard Debt Recovery GP, LLC v. Weinstock, 864 A.2d 955 (Del. Ch. 2004) 48 Mack v. White, 165 A. 150 (Del. Super. 1933), 48 Osborn v. Kemp, 991 A.2d 1153 (Del. 2010) 30 iii EFTA00613943 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Schmeusser v. Schmeusser, 559 A.

requires "enforce[ment of] the objectively reasonable interpretation that emerges." United Rentals, Inc. v. RAM Holdings, Inc., 937 A.2d 810, 835 (Del. Ch. 2007). As we now discuss, if the Arbitrator examines the LPA from the perspective of a third person with any knowledge of hedge funds, the practic

(Del. Ch. 1992) 48, 49 AT&T Corp. v. Lillis, 953 A.2d 241 (Del. 2008) 30 BASF Corp. v. POSM H Props. P'ship, LP, 09 Civ. 3608, 2009 WL 522721 (Del. Ch. March 3, 2009) 36 Chrysler Corp. v. Chaplake Holdings, Ltd., 822 A.2d 1024 (Del. 2003) 42 Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 603 A.2d 818 (Del. 1

was the Fund's in-house lawyers who actually put the words of the Side Letter on paper. See L U. N. Am., Inc. v. A.LU. Ins. Co., 896 A.2d 880, 885 (Del. Super. 2006) ("Where all parties to a contract are knowledgeable, there is no reason for [construing ambiguities] against the party who drafted the final

1997). A court determines whether an interpretation is "reasonable" from the perspective of a third party. Dittrick v. Chalfant, 948 A.2d 400, 406 (Del. Ch. 2007) ("[If] a reasonable third party would be unable to determine the meaning of certain contractual provisions, the agreement is considered ambi