Epstein Secrets

d until 2002, just months before the commencement of this litigation. On Jan- uary 31, 2002, Citibank closed its last re- maining bank branch in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Citibank no longer makes real estate-related loans in the Virgin Islands. (Malin Aff. 11 3-4.) Citibank, however, continues to process its ou

ing the depositions for a date and time that is suitable for both the Defendants and Plaintiff, and relocating the depositions from Philadelphia to the U.S. Virgin Islands for Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell; and New Albany, Ohio for the Wexners. Accordingly, this Court should grant Defendants' motion for a protective ord

fs counter that the defendants are currently doing busi- ness in the Virgin Islands and that this Court has jurisdiction over the defendants under the Virgin Islands' Long—Arm Stat- ute. The plaintiffs insist that the defen- dants' depiction of Citigroup as a "holding company" is belied by Citigroup's public disclosur

e that this Court has jurisdiction under the Virgin Islands Long-Arm Statute over both the defendants. 2. The Defendants' "Minimum Con- tacts" in the Virgin Islands Meet the Constitution's Due Process Re- quirements In addition to finding jurisdiction under this forum's long-arm statute, I must also determine whet

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

in advising the plaintiffs about the AIG-managed fund. Accordingly, I find that New York law does not govern these claims, and instead shall look to Virgin Islands law to determine whether the plaintiffs have stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. NEW YORK'S MARTIN ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS LAWSUIT

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

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 adequately stated causation by alleging that the defendants did not disclose their

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