Epstein Secrets

omise 42 B. Jeepers Has No Claim for Fraud Because Mr. Zwirn Fully Disclosed All Accounting Irregularities and Made No Misrepresentations to Mr. Epstein 43 C. Jeepers's Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty or Negligent Misrepresentation Against Mr. Zwirn and the Other Zwirn Parties 47 III. JEEPER

in June 2009, VRF I LLC became the managing member of the Fund. The dispute centers on whether or not Jeepers, an investment vehicle controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, complied with the rules of the Fund when it attempted to withdraw money from the Fund. Claimants have no direct financial interest in this dispute

not Jeepers, an investment vehicle controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, complied with the rules of the Fund whe

Irregularities and Made No Misrepresentations to Mr. Epstein 43 C. Jeepers's Claim for Breach of Fiduciary

ers v. LJM2 Capital Mgmt., LP, 794 A.2d 1276 (Del. Ch. 2002) 48 Am. Gen. Corp. v. Continental Airlines Corp., 622 A.2d 1 (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 Chrysle

he allegations against Epstein and suggesting that the plea deal constituted Government misconduct. Liam Stack, U.S. Opens Inquiry Into Handling of Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Abuse Case, N.Y. Times (Feb. 6, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/usgbi-jeffrey-epstein.html. The exposi garnered attention from the med

hat Maxwell had defamed Giuffre by stating that Giuffre was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). (15-cv- 7433, Dkt. No. 1.) Boies Schiller represented the plaintiff in the litigation, and continues to represent her on a pending post-settlemen

crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). (15-cv- 7433, Dkt. No. 1.) B

cation of the Protective Order. Permissive intervention is the appropriate procedural device when any non-party seeks to modify a protective order. AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 2005) ("We have stated that permissive intervention is the proper method for a nonparty to seek a modifi

t Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell had defamed by stating that was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). (15-cv- 7433, Dkt. No. I.) Boies Schiller represented the plaintiff in the litigation, and continues to represent her on a pending post

ll, alleging that Maxwell had defamed by stating that was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). (15-cv- 7433, Dkt. No. I.) Boies Schiller represented the plaintiff in the litigation, and continues to represent her on a pending post-settlemen

the allegations against Epstein and suggesting that the plea deal constituted Government misconduct. Liam Stack, US. Opens Inquiry Into Handling of Jeffrey? Epstein's Sex Abuse Case, N.Y. Times (Feb. 6, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/usfibi-jeffrey-epstein.html. The expose garnered attention

cation of the Protective Order. Permissive intervention is the appropriate procedural device when any non-party seeks to modify a protective order. AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 2005) ("We have stated that permissive intervention is the proper method for a nonparty to seek a modifi

iv. P. 24(b)(1)(b) (doc. #79). The motion to intervene should be denied. appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to whether or not this Court rules that the Government violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims'

d of "common question of law or fact" sufficient to support his permissive intervention into this case. Accordingly, as with the similar motion for Epstein's defense attorneys, his motion to intervene in this Crime Victims' Rights Act case is without merit and should be denied. Alternatively, if the Co

cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to whether or not

ict court's ruling on such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) see also AT&T Corp. I. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention has virtually never been reversed" because of the cons

24(b)(1)(b) (DE #79). The motion to intervene should be denied. Reinhart appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to Reinhart whether or not this Court rules that the Government violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime

d of "common question of law or fact" sufficient to support his permissive intervention into this case. Accordingly, as with the similar motion for Epstein's defense attorneys, his motion to intervene in this Crime Victims' Rights Act case is without merit and should be denied. Alternatively, if the Co

cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to Reinhart whether

t court's ruling on such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) see also AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention has virtually never been reversed" because of the cons