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

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' claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count IV) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count l) because, under

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

ave stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. NEW YORK'S MARTIN ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS LAWSUIT The defendants aver that the Marlin Act, New York General Business section 352 et seq., bars the plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count IV) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count V) because, under th

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

ave 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' claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count IV) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count V) because, under th