Epstein Secrets

amount of the discount will represent the [] gross income on the transaction." 13 The Confidential Offering Memorandum acknowledges that Banyon and Levin purchase "non-tort labor and employment settlements from plaintiffs which are not identified but who are represented by Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler"

artnership with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BIF, at all times relevant hereto, was operated by its Managing Members Levin and Preve as a putative investment entity formed exclusively to purchase interests in Ponzi scheme settlements. 55. Defendant, BANYON USVI, LLC (h

ship which, at all times relevant hereto, served as the auditing firm for BIF and Banyon 1030-32 and as the accounting firm for RRA, Rothstein, and Rosenfeldt individually. As described, Berenfeld was uniquely positioned as Banyon auditor and RRA accountant to discover the fraudulent scheme and, despite co

he produce current account statements. Eventually, Stay relented and began inconsolably crying, repeating the phrase, "I don't want to go to jail." Rosenfeldt proceeded to telephone Spinosa, who initially declined to provide account balance verification. After much cajoling, Spinosa finally informed Rosen

imply put, Banyon and Rothstein needed Bekkedam and his cadre of wealthy investors to perpetuate the Ponzi and Bekkedam needed the capital infusion Levin provided; ii. Bekkedam betrayed numerous investors who entrusted him with their savings by recklessly feeding their funds into the largest Ponzi s

d by RRA or TD Bank. In fact, the fictitious $8,000,000.00 wire is powerful evidence of the frenzied push by the Principal Conspirators, along with Levin and Preve, to do and say whatever was needed to secure investor funding as the Ponzi scheme began to unravel. Indeed, in their feverish zeal to ind

g independently verified; b. Berenfeld's complicity in the Ponzi scheme is further compounded by its role as accountants for RRA and Rothstein and Rosenfeldt individually, providing it with first-hand knowledge of the patent inconsistencies between Banyon's purported verified audited receivables and RRA'

ceedings. Under Florida law, there is no immunity for acts undertaken in judicial proceedings that bear no relation to those proceedings. See, e.g., Levin, Middlebrooks, Mahie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 616, 608 (1994). It is for a fact finder to determine wheth

e there was no time in the schedule to depose Mr. Rothstein. The deposition of Scott Rothstein was taken in the bankruptcy proceeding of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler ("RRA"), but not completed, from December 12, 2011 through December 7 EFTA00808032 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA0

ank National Association, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4DI3-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10

pon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm. Rothstein himself admitte

nd related to the proceedings, the litigation privilege applied to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.

4) fraud. Epstein's complaint set forth details of a Pont scheme that Edwards, Rothstein, and others perpetrated through their law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). (It 1-36).' The scheme included fraudulent promises to investors of multi-million dollar recoveries against Epstein from v

ank National Association, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9

pon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm. Rothstein himself admitte

until right now. MR. BREWER: So let's get into the Wolfe case. That's where we're headed next. And really there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. All of them deal with litigation privilege wh

pon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm. Rothstein himself admitte