Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg NYLJ New Statesman, CJR, NY Mag, AJE, Georgia, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

In Epstein Case Jes Staley Argues To Skip JPM Chase Trial Now Judge to Rule by May 31

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 19 – J.P. Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank were sued for their enabling of Jeffrey Epstein, in lawsuits filed on Thanksgiving 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Inner City Press found them in the docket.

  Late on May 17, 2023, plaintiffs' lawyer David Boies selectively announced a $75 million settlement with Deutsche Bank. Nothing was filed in the docket. But the pressure on JPM Chase, and its CEO Dimon, grew.

More including class analysis on Substack here

On May 19, Jes Staley's lawyer argued before Judge Jed S. Rakoff to dismiss JPM Chase's claim against him; Chase opposed. Inner City Press was there, live tweeted thread here:

Staley's lawyer: It's striking that JPM Chase is saying, We're not reponsible but if we are. It's Staley. Indemnification does not apply here - JPMC did things beyond what Staley did.

Staley's lawyer: This alleged vouching by Mr Staley would have been to JPMC's employees. The doesn't identify the harm supposedly caused by Mr Staley to Jane Doe, much less the USVI. Judge Rakoff: I have to limit you to 20 minute, I have a 4 pm [criminal] matter

JPM's lawyer: Doe alleges sexual assault by Staley. But if Staley had done his job, Epstein would not have been a JPM Chase client. We cannot indemnify Staley for criminal acts.

JPM's lawyer: The Madoff case supports us. And it is Congress' purpose to punish traffickers. The question at bar must be answered in our favor.

Staley's lawyer: Bylaws are contractual in nature, the Delaware courts have found, contrary to JPMorgan's argument. Judge Rakoff: They argue they weren't contractually giving up their right to sue you for indemnification.

Staley's lawyer:  Cases don't say that

 Staley's lawyer: If they have to re-plead, they should make things clear.

Judge Rakoff: So you know what you're facing. JPM Chase's lawyer Leonard Gail: Let's spend real time on Madoff. Madoff says contribution can be implied. Its language was shorthand- and dicta

JPM's lawyer: The TVPA should not be read to help traffickers. Restatement of Torts, Section 23 - Congress was legislating against it.

 Judge Rakoff: I agree Congressional silence is not a basis for reaching a definitive conclusion. They are talkative.. I am joking

 JPM's lawyer: Even if there was no contribution, supplemental jurisdiction, they can stay in - they have already been present at depositions. It's judicial economy. Judge Rakoff: I've heard what I need.

Judge Rakoff: I'll get you at least a bottom line opinion by the end of this month. Mr Staley should know by May 31. Anything else? No? If you would clear out, I have a 4 pm matter.

More on Substack here.

   The JPM Chase complaint is on Patreon, here.

On March 20, 2023 Judge Jed S. Rakoff in a bottom line order dismissed some but not all claims, in the Epstein-related cases against JPMC and Deutsche Bank.

Inner City Press put the order on its DocumentCloud here.

On April 28, a motion seeking class certification of Epstein-related claims against JPMC was filed; filing on Patreon here.

On May
8, the US Virgin Islands filed with Judge Rakoff to strike JPM Chase's equitable defenses, including tis "fault-shifting" defense, arguing that "it is well established within the Second Circuit and elsewhere that government plaintiffs suing to vindicate public rights are not subject to equitable defenses that may be invoked against private plaintiffs." Full filing on Patreon here.


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.


Feedback: Editorial [at]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]