Beyond The Horizon

JP Morgan's Memorandum In Law In Opposition To Jes Staley's Motion To Dismiss (Part 3) (7/7/24)

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:

Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.
Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.
Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.
Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.
Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.

The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct

(commercial at 8:21)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Duration:: 16m
Broadcast on:: 07 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

an official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Maybe you can save, too. With Medicare's Extra Help Program, my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp Paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services This summer, saddle up with the only sports book where you can bet on horse racing. FanDuel! Right now, new customers can get a no-sweat first bet up to $500. Just download the app or go to fanduel.com/horses to score your no-sweat bet up to $500. 21+ in present in Colorado. Offer valid on first real money wager of $5 or more. Verify an FD racing account required. Bonus issued a non-withdrawable racing site credit that expires seven days after issuance. Max refund $500. Restrictions apply. See terms at racing.fanduel.com. Gambling problem, call 1-800-Gambler. What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the JP Morgan, USB-I, and just Staley paperwork. Part 3. Staley's additional attacks on JPMC's identity claims are meritless. A. Delaware law and JPMC's bylaws empower JPMC to bring an identity claim against Staley on these facts. As a bank governed by Delaware law, JPMC unquestionably has the authority to bring this lawsuit, motion, example A, Delaware law, section 7.06, as it can sue and be sued in all courts. Delaware code, annual title, 8 section 122.2. The very provision of Delaware law that addresses JPMC's ability to identify its officers from third-party claims expressly contemplates an action by the corporation against its officers, and prohibits any identity that officers are judged liable to the corporation. Delaware code, title, 8 section 145B, and nothing in Delaware law limits JPMC's ability to bring or restrict the claims it may assert in a lawsuit against a former officer who is acted in bad faith. CO Conner vs. Seaboard, Communications Corporation 32, Delaware CH 143, 144, 82, A.2D 102, 102, 1951. Observing that an insolvent corporation has an asset in the form of cause of action and possible cause of actions against its former officers and directors for breach of duty under Delaware law. The controlling state law plainly empowers JPMC to bring this lawsuit against Staley. Staley protests, however, that JPMC's identity claim is foreclosed by JPMC's by-law offering identification to officers involved in litigation to the fullest extent permitted by law. Motion example A at section 5.01. But Staley fails to explain what the fullest extent means. Indeed, Delaware law limits such identity to cases in which the person acted in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be or not opposed to the best interest of the corporation. Delaware Code Title 8 Section 145A, ID at section 145B, and the governing, Delaware Statute Expressly prohibits a corporation from identifying an officer or employee who acted in bad faith or contrary to the interest of the company. C. von Felt versus Stifle Financial Corporation, 1991 WL-41-3393 at 2. Delaware Chamber of Commerce, June 11, 1999. It should now be clear that as far as section 145 is concerned, Delaware corporations lack the power to identify a party who did not act in good faith or in the best interest of the corporation. Wall Tuke versus Conta Commodity Services Inc. 88, F.3D 87, 93 Second Circuit, 1996. The Delaware Good Faith Clause must mean that there is no power to identify Wall Tuke if he did not act in good faith. A corporate fiduciary acts in bad faith when motivated by a purpose other than that of advancing the best interest of the corporation and its stockholders. Indole Food Company Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 2015 WL-505-2214 at 39. Here, JPMC's third-party complaint alleges that Staley repeatedly abandoned the interests of JPMC and served his own and Epstein's interests. JPMC complaint at 17, and continuously breached his fiduciary duty acting against the interests of JPMC and in his own personal interests and benefits in those of Epstein. JPMC's general identification provision clearly do not require JPMC to identify Staley for the conduct alleged in this lawsuit. None of the cases at Staley's sites take place in the context of such Delaware bylaws and are therefore in opposite. C. Servant sign erector company versus allied outdoor advertisement incorporated, 573NYS, 2D, 513, 514, 1st Department, 1991. B. Doe and USVI's attempts to claim direct liability against JPMC do not preclue JPMC's identification claims against Staley. Staley also contends that identification is inappropriate because he disputes that Doe and USVI seek to hold the JPMC vicariously viable as a result of Staley's actions, motion at 13 and 14, but that position misconstrues the Doe and USVI complaints, ignoring their repeated reliance on Staley's alleged actions to assert that his employer, JPMC, is responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Doe's amended complaint invokes Staley's 97 times and repeatedly alleges that JPMC knew of or participated in Epstein's sex trafficking venture through Staley. C. E. G. Doe, FAC, 135, 164, 200, 205 and 206, 230 and 231, 239, 327, 328 and 360. And the USVI's second amended complaint likewise mentioned Staley 41 times, citing and reproducing numerous emails between Staley and Epstein to provide a basis for its claims against JPMC. C. USVI, Docket 120, USVI, SAC 52 through 63, even more, Doe asserts repeatedly that Staley's previously undisclosed conduct was within the scope of his employment, with the goal of imputing Staley's actions and knowledge to his employer JPMC. Doe, FAC, 203, 205, 226, C. Docket 102, opinion and order at 29 and 30, and both Doe and the USVI seek to hold JPMC liable for retaining Epstein as a client, a decision that was directly and approximately caused by Staley's active concealment of Epstein's wrongdoing, even when JPMC asked him to offer his view as to whether JPMC should retain Epstein as a client. In short, both plaintiffs invoke agency law to hold JPMC responsible for their employee Staley's knowledge and actions, thereby giving rise to JPMC's claim for identification or contribution against Staley. To be sure, Doe and USVI also allege that JPMC is responsible for their injuries based on other conduct, but JPMC vigorously disputes those allegations and it's premature to foreclose JPMC from seeking identity at this stage. Whether JPMC is liable because of Staley's actions, how Staley influenced others, or otherwise her questions to be resolved as the litigation proceeds. For that reason, Staley's contention that there are no allegations he was aware of, Epstein's alleged cash withdrawals or bank secrecy at compliance issues misses the point. See, Staley's scope of employment argument is misguided. Staley also argues that JPMC's identification claim must be dismissed because it seeks to hold Mr. Staley accountable for actions outside the scope of his responsibilities at the bank. Motion at 14, but while JPMC argues that many of Staley's alleged inappropriate activities, criminal and otherwise, fall outside his employment scope, JPMC can plan 42. Doe explicitly alleges that Staley was acting within that scope when he visited Epstein, both in New York and the USVI, used the massage room at Epstein's residence, met many of Epstein's trafficking victims, including Jane Doe No. 1, and personally observed the sexual abuse of young women, including Jane Doe No. 1. Given the party's competing factual allegations, Staley's attempt to dismiss the identity claim at this early stage should be rejected. See, Bo Shomp v. City in New York, 771, NYS.2D129, 131, 2nd, Department 2004. Riviello v. Waldron, 47, NY2D297303 at 1979. We all have somewhere we're trying to get to. As the largest energy producer in Colorado, Chevron is working to responsibly meet rising energy demand. So everyone can get to where they want to be. You've arrived. That's Energy in Progress. Visit chevron.com/tankless. At King Super's Pharmacy, care is what's most convenient for you. Care is being here when you need us. We're open evenings and weekends. Care is helping you save more. Most insurance plans and discount cards are accepted at your local King Super's Pharmacy. Care is saving you time by managing your prescriptions online. You can request freefills, check order status, and more. Care is convenience that works for everyone. King Super's A World of Care is in store. Services and availability vary by location. Age and other restrictions may apply for coverage, consult your health insurance company. Visit the pharmacy or our site for details. Whether Staley did or did not personally make the decision to retain Epstein at JPMC, is irrelevant to JPMC's identity claim and misses the point. Motion at 14 and 15. Staley kept JPMC in the dark along the same lines, the good faith efforts, of other employees at JPMC, who made the final call. We're unmistakably and unknowingly influenced by Staley's failure to report material information, whether criminal or not, while vouching for Epstein and his character, acts and omissions solely within Staley's province. See Motion at 14, setting Corley vs. County Square Apartments Inc. A20, NYS 2D 900, 2nd Department 2006. The worst of Staley's alleged conduct involving Epstein, including rape, was undoubtedly outside the scope of his employment. But JPMC would plainly be entitled to identify if the court finds that Staley's failure to disclose information or his other misconduct gives rise to vicarious liability for JPMC. Part 4, JPMC is stated at a claim for contribution. Contribution is available where two or more tort feasers combine to cause an injury and is determined in accordance with a relative culpability of each such person. Godoy vs. Abbemaster of Miami 754, NYS 2D 301, 306, 2nd Department 2003. Internal quotation marks and citations omitted. See NYS CPLR's Section 1401. As Staley acknowledges Motion at 15, JPMC states a claim for contribution if it alleges that Staley breached the duty to plaintiffs or JPMC. His breach caused the injury and the injury is the same for which JPMC is allegedly liable. Bellis vs. Tokyo Marine and Fire Insurance Company LTD 2002 WL 193149 at 17. SDNY 2002. JPMC's third party complaint adequately states a contribution claim. It incorporates the allegations of Doe and USVI accusing Staley of observing specific trafficking victims including Doe, raping Doe, and engaging in conduct that suggests participation in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. CEG, JPMC compliance 22 and 33. JPMC's third party complaint makes clear that if those allegations were true Staley caused harm to Doe and the USVI by concealing his improper conduct while vouching for Epstein's character within JPMC, a direct and proximate cause of JPMC's decision to continue to do business with Epstein until 2013. As Staley acknowledges JPMC may base its contribution claim on Staley's duty to JPMC, Motion at 15, thus Staley's contention that there is no allegation that Staley owed a duty to Doe or the USVI is irrelevant. ID at 15, JPMC complaint 17, 37 and 58, and his assertions that JPMC fell to adequately to allege Staley breached his fiduciary duty as mistaken. Staley's contention that JPMC is not adequately pled the Staley caused the same harm as JPMC supposedly did fares no better. JPMC's impliter complaint makes it clear that Staley's concealment of his alleged conduct and knowledge of Epstein's activities along with vouching for Epstein and his character within JPMC resulted in Epstein's continued retention as a JPMC client. CEG, JPMC complaint 36 through 42. Per Doe and USVI, JPMC's retention of Epstein enabled his sex trafficking venture, which caused their injuries. Any suggestion that this injury is somehow separate and distinct. Motion at 16 is spacious. Staley argues that the crux of plaintiff's complaints is that JPMC provided the financial lifeblood of Epstein's sex trafficking venture, which is a different sort of misconduct than Staley engaged in. But even if that were true, it would be of no consequence. Contribution rules apply to third party action, even though the respective liabilities of the parties might rest on different grounds, since the same inquiry to defendant is involved in each instance. Crow Cremans, Wolf, and Munier v. Westchester County, 455, NYS, 2D, 390, 391, 2nd Department, 1982. That JPMC's alleged liability may be based on different grounds, thus does not foreclose its contribution claim for the plaintiff's injuries. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode right here, and in the next episode, we're going to pick up with part five. JPMC's breach of fiduciary duty and faithless servant causes of action would survive dismissal of the identification and contribution claims. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Maybe you can save too. With Medicare's Extra Help Program, my premium is zero, and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp. Paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hello, it is Ryan, and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up now at ChumbaCocino.com. That's ChumbaCocino.com. by Chamba Casino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group, void were prohibited by law. 18+ Terms and Conditions apply.