Epstein Secrets

Davison"], Vice President of Citibank in New York and Epstein's private banker, and other Citibank employees telephoned Epstein while he was in the Virgin Islands and recommended that the plaintiffs invest through EFTA01726510 Financial Trust Co., Inc. v. Citibank, N.A. Civ. No. 2002-108 Memorandum Opinion

tiffs counter that the defendants are currently doing business in the Virgin Islands and that this Court has jurisdiction over the defendants under the Virgin Islands' Long- Arm Statute. The plaintiffs insist that the defendants' depiction of Citigroup as a "holding company" is belied by Citigroup's public disclos

y a preponderance of the evidence that transfer is necessary. In re Charles Schwab & Co. Sec. Litig., 69 F. Supp. 2d 734, 735 (D.V.I. 1999) (citing Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970)). Although a trial judge is afforded great discretion in deciding this motion, he or she should not disturb a plai

tions. Resolving the case in this Court is just as efficient as trying it in New York and there is no evidence that the interests of New York or the Virgin Islands would be better served if this matter were not litigated in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., Mesalic. 897 F.2d at 701 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v.

ng by a preponderance of the evidence that transfer is necessary. In re Charles Schwab & Co. Sec. Litig.. 69 F.Supp.2d 734, 735 (D.Vi.1999) (citing Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970)). Although a trial judge is afforded great discretion in deciding this motion, he or she should not disturb a plaint

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

ng by a preponderance of the evidence that transfer is necessary. In re Charles Schwab & Co. Sec. Litig., 69 F.Supp.2d 734, 735 (D.Vi.1999) (citing Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp. 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970)). Although a trial judge is afforded great discretion in deciding this motion, he or she should not disturb a plainti