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

aintiffs have failed to allege ade- quately that the defendants' actions caused the plaintiffs' losses under New York law. (Mem. Of Law in Supp. of Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 40-44.) As noted above, Virgin Islands law governs these claims. The plaintiffs maintain that they have ade- quately stated causat

defense of an inconvenient forum, they did not agree to sue or be sued exclusively in New York. The Amended 1999 Note states that the undersigned [Epstein] hereby irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of any New York state or federal court sitting in New York City, and the undersigned hereby irrevoca

COURT IS PROPER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1391(A) Defendants also argue that this is an improper venue in which to litigate this dispute. (Mem. in Supp. of Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 20-21.) I agree with the plaintiffs, however, that the Virgin Islands is a proper choice of venue. (Pls.' Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Mo

main purpose is to protect AIG's interests in its dealing with Epstein and FTC. The agreement discusses at length the process by which AIG, through its agent, Citibank, will deliver income notes to Epstein, the purchase

any view expressed by the Company, the Investment Manager, the Placement Agent, the Agent or any of their respective affiliates. (Mem. In Supp. of Defs' Mot. To Dismiss, Ex. C. at 10-11, ¶ i.) Although this document alludes to Citibank's role in this one transaction, the agreement does not speak to the f

defense of an inconvenient forum, they did not agree to sue or be sued exclusively in New York. The Amended 1999 Note states that the undersigned [Epstein] hereby irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of any New York state or federal court sitting in New York City, and the undersigned hereby irrevoca

COURT IS PROPER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1391(A) Defendants also argue that this is an improper venue in which to litigate this dispute. (Mem. in Supp. of Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 20-21.) I agree with the plaintiffs, however, that the Virgin Islands is a proper choice of venue. (Pls' Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Mot

t merit. A fair reading of the Subscription Agreement compels the conclusion that its main purpose is to protect AIG's interests in its dealing with Epstein and FTC. The agreement discusses at length the process by which AIG, through its agent, Citibank, will deliver income notes to Epstein, the purchase

any view expressed by the Company, the Investment Manager, the Placement Agent, the Agent or any of their respective affiliates. (Mem. In Supp. of Defs' Mot. To Dismiss, Ex. C. at 10-11, ¶ i.) Although this document alludes to Citibank's role in this one transaction, the agreement does not speak to the f