Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / JP Morgan And Their Unredacted Opposition To Jes Staley Dismissing The Lawsuit (Part 2) (9/12/26)

Transcript

JP Morgan And Their Unredacted Opposition To Jes Staley Dismissing The Lawsuit (Part 2) (9/12/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're picking up where we left off
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: with the J.P. Morgan, USVI, and Jess Staley Royal Rumble. 2.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Identification and contribution claims are permissible under the TVPA. The
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: New York legislature established the statutory right of contribution that,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: by its plain language, encompasses JPMC's TVPA claim against Staley.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: New York permits contribution where two parties are subject to
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: potential liability for damages for the same personal injury, injury
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: to property, or wrongful death. See NYCPLR Section 1401. JPMC's
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: contribution claims based on the TVPA fall squarely within that language,
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: and the New York common law similarly recognizes its identification claim.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Staley fails to cite Any case holding that the TVPA
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: forecloses idemification or contribution claims, nor could he. The sole
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: authority squarely on point holds just the opposite, under analogous
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: Pennsylvania state law. In AB v. Marriott International Incorporated, the
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: court held that the hotel chain, sued under the TVPA
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: for knowingly benefiting from sex trafficking, could maintain third-party claims
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: under Pennsylvania law for contribution and idemity against local hotel franchises,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: Even though the TVPA did not directly address how to
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: apportion liability, the court found Marriott's reading sufficiently supported by
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: the Act's text to permit the court to conclude that
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: traffickers may be liable to Marriott if Marriott is found
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: liable to AB under Pennsylvania law of indemnity and contribution.
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: Idea 3. But see DiTullio v. Boehm, 2010 WL 11534265
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: at 2. District of Alaska, 2010. Dicta stating that untimely
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: third-party complaint seeking apportionment of damages under Alaska law would
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: be futile. Staley argues that New York's contribution statute does
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: not apply when the source of underlying liability is a
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: federal statute, rather than a state statute or a state
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: common law. but the basis for liability upon which a
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: contribution claim under Section 1401 is predicated can arise from
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: federal law. There is nothing in Section 1401 to the contrary.
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: New York State Elections and Gas Corporation v. First Energy Corp.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: 2007 WL 143-4901-7 NDNY May 11, 2007 Courts thus regularly
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: apply the New York Contribution Statute to federal causes of action.
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: CEG Jackson v. Odinot, 9F. SUPP, 3D342, 366, SDNY, 2014. The
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Lanham Act, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, 2007, WL143, 4901,
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: at 8, NDNY, May 11, 2007. Two Incorporated v. Kohl's
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: Department Stores, Inc., 213, FRD, 138, SDNY, 2003. Lanham Act. Indeed,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: the New York Contribution Statute expressly carves out the workers'
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: compensation laws of the federal government and why CPLR Section
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: 1401 surplus usage were federal claims categorically exempted. Staley also
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: goes through great pains to argue that any contribution claim
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: in this case must be a matter of federal common
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: law rather than state law. But that academic distinction is
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: of no consequence here, as Staley himself recognizes New York
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: state law would supply the rule of decision for any
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: contribution or identification claim that exists under the TVPA. Motion
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: at 7 and 12. And the legal reality is beyond reproach.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: Federal courts applying federal common law frequently adopt or borrow
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: state common law as the federal rule of decision. Star
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: International Company v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York 906 F.S.U.P.P.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: 2D202-233 SDNY 2012 The court here, thus, must engage in
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: the familiar task of determining whether Congress intended to supersede
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: or to supplement existing state remedies, as in all other
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: cases of preemption. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transportation Workers Union
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: of America, AFL-CIO, 451 U.S. 7791-1981. Matters left unaddressed in
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: a federal statute, even a comprehensive and detailed one, are
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: presumably left subject to the disposition provided by state law.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: O'Melveny v. Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 7985, 1994. Citation
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: and internal quotation marks omitted. That presumption is overcome only
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: by express preemption clause. If Congress has occupied the field
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: by creating a scheme so comprehensive... that it leaves no
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: room for supplementary state regulation, International Paper Company v. Ouellette, 479, U.S. 481, 491, 1987,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: were it impossible simultaneously to comply with the federal and
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: state law, or if state law stands as an obstacle
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: to the accomplishment of Congress' goals. Felder v. Casey, 487, U.S. 131, 151, 1988.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: Implied preemption analysis starts with the assumption that that the
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: historic police powers of the state are not to be superseded,
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Milwaukee v. Illinois and Michigan 451, U.S. 304, 316, and 17, 1981.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: Quoting Jones v. Rath Packaging Company, 430 U.S., 519, 525, 1977.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: As the Supreme Court is directed, whether Congress intended to
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: create a right of contribution is assessed by specificity. Factors
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: relevant to this inquiry are the language of the statute itself,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: its legislative history, the underlying purpose and structure of the
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: statutory scheme, and the likelihood that Congress intended to supersede
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: or supplement existing state remedies. N.W. Airlines, Inc. v. Transportation
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: Workers Union of America AFL-CIO 451 U.S. 7791-1981 Applying those
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: factors here warrants denial of Staley's dismissal motion. It's undisputed
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: that the TVPA does not expressly preempt New York Contribution
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: and Identification Law, nor does it do so impliedly. Quite
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: the contrary. The stated purpose of the TVPA is to
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: combat trafficking in persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery,
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: and involuntary servitude. Pub L No. 106-386, Section 102, 114...
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: Statute 1488-2000. And the TVPA's legislative history confirms that Congress
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: enacted the TVPA to prevent trafficking in persons, to ensure
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims. H.R. Rep. No.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: 108 through 264-2003 at 2. Staley's approach would shift liability
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: entirely towards passive intermediaries accused of indirectly or unwittingly benefiting
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: from sex trafficking and while at the same time prohibiting
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: them from holding those alleged to be direct perpetrators responsible
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: for even a single dollar. Under Staley's interpretation, JPMC could
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: not even seek contribution from Epstein himself were he still alive.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: As the Second Circuit explained in considering contribution, under ERISA,
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: there is no reason a party who is only partially
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: responsible for a loss should bear its full brunt. The
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: likely inference from Congress's silence on the contribution issue is
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: that Congress simply did not focus its attention beyond the
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: rights of victims. Chemung Canal Trading Company v. Sovereign Bank, Maryland, 939, F. 2D, 12, 16, 18,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 1991. So too here. Staley's reliance on cases
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: in which no federal right to contribution was found does
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: not yield a different result. In each, there was a
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: clear congressional objective that would have been undermined by the
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: allowance of contribution claims, For example, Northwest Airlines Supra Equal
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Pay Act and Title VII and Herman v. RSR Security
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: Services LTD 172F. 3D 132 Second Circuit 1999 FLSA both dealt
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: with unemployment claims. In that context, the Supreme Court has
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: made clear that underlying statutes were expressly directed against employers
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: and that Congress intended to regulate their conduct for the
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: benefit of employees. Northwest Airlines, 451, U.S. at 92. Thus,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: the court found that it would have flouted congressional objectives
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: to allow offending employers a right of contribution. The Second
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: Circuit in Herman relied on a similar analysis to reach
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: the same conclusion. For the FLSA, also finding that the
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: statutory scheme preempted state law. Herman, 172, 3D at 143. Here,
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: by contrast, it simply cannot be said that Congress... enacted
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: the TVPA with the targeted goal of regulating companies who
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: may unintentionally and unwittingly participate in a sex trafficking venture
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: organized and operated by a principal perpetrator and hitted by
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: a faithless employee. Far from obstructing congressional purposes, allowing contribution
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: and identification would, in this context, ensure that the actors
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: who engage in the most blameworthy conduct, intentional and egregious conduct,
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: share in the sanction. Any other conclusion dilutes the deterrent
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: effect against sex traffickers to a degree surely unimaginable to
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: the TVPAs and actors. Texas Industries v. Radcliffe Materials, which
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: addressed antitrust violations under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, is
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: much the same. 451 U.S. 630, 1981. There the court
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: placed dispositive reliance on the provision of treble damages, action
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: under the Clayton Act, against participants in a conspiracy to
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: restrain trade. ID at 639. The very idea of treble
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: damages reveals an intent to punish, past, and to deter
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: future unlawful conduct. The TVPA civil prohibition, which again reaches
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: any actor who benefits from a venture, they should have
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: known violated the TVPA, no matter how attenuated their connection.
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: involves no such draconian statutory treble damage penalty, thus no
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: inference is justified. The Second Circuit in Bernard v. Madoff
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: Investment Securities, LLC, 721 F. 3d, 54 Second Circuit, 2013, upon
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: which Staley relies, is not to the contrary. Madoff did
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: not address, because the trustee did not contend, as JPMC
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: does here, that the relevant federal statute implied a right
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: to contribution. Rather, the trustee made clear that he was
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: not seeking contribution for violations of SIPA or any other
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: federal statute. Importantly, Madoff acknowledged that a federal statute may
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: provide a right to contribution by implication, idea 66, citing
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: Texas Industries' SUPRA, which in turn relied on Northwest Airlines' SUPRA.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: And that is what the TVPA does here. Its structure
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: and legislative history reflect that Congress intended to ensure... that
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: traffickers would be held accountable, and that Congress, therefore, did
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: not intend to display state contribution law. A conclusion that
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: congressional silence overrides the clearly expressed intent of the New
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: York legislature to permit contribution and identification under state law
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: would turn the presumption against preemption on its head. City
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: of Los Angeles v. Acom Services, Inc., A54, F. 3D, 1149, 1156,
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: 50 9th Circuit 2017. Congress intended no such result. All right,
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up this episode here. And in
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: the next episode, we're going to pick up with Section 3.
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: Staley's additional attacks on JPMC's identity claim are meritless. All
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.