Epstein Secrets

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

B's relationship with MG was dis- lished that there exists no private right of action for claims that are within the purview of the [Martin] Act.); Granite Partners, L.P. Bear, Stearns, & Co., Inc., 17 F.Supp.2d 275, 291 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (same); Deutsch I Inte- grated Barter Ina Inc. 700 F.Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y.I98

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

Sept. 10, 2002) Cult is well established that there exists no private right of action for claims that are within the purview of the [Martin] Act.); Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Steams, & Co., Inc., 17 F.Supp.2d 275, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (same); Deutsch v. Integrated Barter Ina Inc. 700 F.Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y.19

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

pt. 10, 2002) ("(Ilt is well established that there exists no private right of action for claims that are within the purview of the (Martin] Act.); Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns, & Co., Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 275, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (same); Deutsch v. Integrated Barter Int'l, Inc. 700 F. Supp. 194 (S.D