ULD I READ THIS NOTICE? This Notice is given pursuant to an order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). This Notice serves to inform you of the proposed settlement of the above- captioned class action lawsuit for $290 million in cash (the "Settlement

transferred, by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Financial Trust Company, Inc. v. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., No. 10 Civ. 1226 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), and, by order of th

ferred, by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to the UntiedUnacd States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Financial Trust Company, Inc. v. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., No. 10 Civ. 1226 (RWS) (_.) (the "Action"), and, by order of the Cou

d Defendants in a lawsuit now pending before the Honorable John G. Roth! of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), captioned v. Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwel under Case No. 1:17-C1f-00616 (the "Lawsuit") in which Plaintiff alleges conduct by Defendants

t Epstein which is now pending before the Honorable Donald W. Hafele of The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Court") in a case encaptioned, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, individually, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, and L.M., individually, under Case No.

t Epstein which is now pending before the Honorable Donald W. Hafele of The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Court") in a case encaptioned, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, individually, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, and L.M., individually, under Case No.

Case No. 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA. By order entered January 5, 2011 in that proceeding, Magistrate Judge Johnson expressly rejected Epstein's request for the "Court to find the subject correspondence privileged and on that basis prohibit plaintiff? counsel from disclosing it in either of the two 'Fed. R. Crim.

Case No. 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA. By order entered January 5, 2011 in that proceeding, Magistrate Judge Johnson expressly rejected Epstein's request for the "Court to find the subject correspondence privileged and on that basis prohibit plaintiffs' counsel from disclosing it in either of the two 'Fed. R. Crim.

transferred, by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Financial Trust Company, Inc. v. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., No. 10 Civ. 1226 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), and, by order of th

transferred, by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Financial Trust Company, Inc. v. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., No. 10 Civ. 1226 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), and, by order of th

ITIGATION The Litigation is currently pending before Judge Jed S. Rakoff in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The initial complaint in this action was filed on November 24, 2022, and JPMC moved to dismiss the initial complaint on December All capitalized

's command for the production of computers, as if all it wanted was possession of the physical items themselves. For example, the government wishes the "Court to proceed on the manifestly erroneous assumption that the subpoenas are "narrowly tailored" to seek only the "physical computers removed from Epst