Epstein Secrets

econd amended complaint (the "Fisher counterclaim"), is granted in all respects. The Soffer ejectment motion is granted as against deft Ron Soffer. Defls Jeffrey E. Epstein, Ivan S. Fisher, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Dianeataga?/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbum,

the house to the tenant we have selected should Mr. Epstein decide not to reoccupy the premises under the ne

on of the budding pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. § 4301 of seq. 0FM leased the building to defen- dant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fish- er in 1996, purportedly without the Govern- ment's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the

n personally liable because Epstein did not sign the con- tract as an agent or as a corporate officer. Epstein signed the contract as follows: /s/ Jeffery Epstein 1AG. Under New York law, a signature in a representative capacity would have been "Jeffrey Epstein for I.A.G." or "I.A.G., by Jeffrey Epstein". 2

atters extrinsic to the complaint. we will treat defendant Epstein's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judg

RDERED. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, I Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN, Ivan S. Fisher, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elis

RDERED. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, I Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN, Ivan S. Fisher, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elise

d instead shall look to Virgin Islands law to deter- mine whether the plaintiffs have stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. New York's Martin Act Does Not Apply to this Lawsuit The defendants aver that the Martin Act, New York General Business section 352 et seq., bars the plaintiffs' claim

pstein, on behalf of FTC and COUQ, invested $15,000,000 in the HG Fund and $10,000,000 in the ABS Fund, respectively. 4 By August 2006, the value of Epstein's HG Fund investment had increased to over $20,000,000 and the value of Epstein's ABS Fund investment had increased to over $13,000,000. Ever the spe

r own speculation. Claimants Financial Trust Company, Inc. ("FTC") and The C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc. ("COUQ") are entities that billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein operates from a 75-acre private island he owns in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and from offices in New York. As of June 2008, when Epstein pleaded guil

stor Jeffrey Epstein operates from a 75-acre private island he owns in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and from offices in New York. As of June 2008, when Epstein pleaded guilty to two felonies and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, he had over 25 years of Ttperience as an investment adviser. FTC, the

billion or more. The New York Times reported: As Mr. Epstein explains it, he provides a specialized form of s

. ("COUQ") are entities that billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein operates from a 75-acre private island h

be et Internationale D 'Investissement v. 20 Claimants' breath of fiduciary duty claim also must be dismissed as a matter of law because New York's Martin Act bars Claimants' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 352a -352c (McKinney 2007). The Martin Act entrusts to New York State'

From: Richard Kahn To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Alert: Cay

From: Richard Kahn To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Alert:

neral broad regulatory and remedial powers to prevent securities fraud. There is no private right of action under the Martin Act. Prior to 2011, the Martin Act preempted common law claims in the context of securities fraud to the extent said claims did not require proof of deceitful intent. See e.g., Caste

tps://www.thedailybeast.com/billionaire-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-funded-womens- empowerment-entrepreneur-lana-pozh

f ( e:[email protected] ) Eliott Spitzer is said to have revived the law during his tenure as Attorney General.[6] In 2001, his office launched a Martin Act investigation against Merrill Lynch for suspected fraud.[6] When the investigation was made public, Merrill's market value dropped $5 billion in on

. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir.1995). Considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case, I make the following findings. First, Epstein and Financial Trust have selected this forum, and they are residents of the Virgin Islands with strong ties to this community. Epstein owns a seven

s, and that there is no private right of action. (Defs.' Mem. Of Law in Support of Mot. To Dismiss at 44-46.) The plaintiffs counter that New York's Martin Act does not apply to nor bar their claims, (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss at 48-49.) The plaintiffs correctly assert that New York law