Epstein Secrets

after the Fund self-reported the issues in 2006. At the conclusion of its investigation, the SEC elected not to charge Mr. Zwirn or any of the other Zwirn Parties with any wrongdoing, but charged Mr. Gruss with aiding and abetting violations of the Investment Advisers Act for knowingly misusing his au

COUNTERCLAIMS 42 A. Jeepers Has No Claim for Promissory Estoppel Because There Was No Promise 42 B. Jeepers Has No Claim for Fraud Because Mr. Zwirn Fully Disclosed All Accounting Irregularities and Made No Misrepresentations to Mr. Epstein 43 C. Jeepers's Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty o

requires "enforce[ment of] the objectively reasonable interpretation that emerges." United Rentals, Inc. v. RAM Holdings, Inc., 937 A.2d 810, 835 (Del. Ch. 2007). As we now discuss, if the Arbitrator examines the LPA from the perspective of a third person with any knowledge of hedge funds, the practic

(Del. Ch. 1992) 48, 49 AT&T Corp. v. Lillis, 953 A.2d 241 (Del. 2008) 30 BASF Corp. v. POSM H Props. P'ship, LP, 09 Civ. 3608, 2009 WL 522721 (Del. Ch. March 3, 2009) 36 Chrysler Corp. v. Chaplake Holdings, Ltd., 822 A.2d 1024 (Del. 2003) 42 Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 603 A.2d 818 (Del. 1

the "oral contract" claim and Claimants' claim for a declaration of Jeepers's rights with respect to the Fund. Additionally, we understand that the Zwirn Parties contend that the extrinsic evidence is, in any event, relevant to their "exculpatory clause" defense to Jeepers's fraud and breach of fiduci

and contemporaneous e-mails concerning the Side Letter, (see, e.g., December 2004 E-mail Correspondence between Mr. Zwim and Mr. Dubin, Ex. K (Mr. Zwirn: "we're done, ftc in for $20mi1 jan 1 L.P. . . . This is the last 2 year money will 20 EFTA00614019 take from anyone of course"; Mr. Dubin: "of c

1997). A court determines whether an interpretation is "reasonable" from the perspective of a third party. Dittrick v. Chalfant, 948 A.2d 400, 406 (Del. Ch. 2007) ("[If] a reasonable third party would be unable to determine the meaning of certain contractual provisions, the agreement is considered ambi

were invalid and set forth the schedule of eligible withdrawal dates for FTC's investments. FTC did not respond to the letter by claiming that Mr. Zwirn had promised to honor FTC's demand for $80 million. 17 EFTA00613924 FTC subsequently submitted a request for complete withdrawal on February 13,

Zwinz & Co., L.P., DBZ GP, LLC, and Zwirn Holdings, LLC EFTA00613904 Table of Contents Preliminary Statement 1 Statement of Facts 2 A. Mr. Zwirn's Personal Background 2 B. DBZ Background 2 I. DBZ's Investment Strategy 3 2. Mr. Zwirn's Role at DBZ 3 3. Mr. Dubin's Involvement with D

Conclusion 31 EFTA00613905 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES A.R. DeMarco Enters., Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Page(s) 2002 WL 31820970 (Del. Ch. Nov. 26, 2002) 29 Anglo Amen Sec. Fund, L.P. v. S.R. Global Int'! Fund, L.P., 2006 WL 1494360 (Del. Ch. May 24, 2006) 20 BAE Sys. N. Am. Inc. v