EpsteinProject.org

Court records

030_22

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

 Case 1:23-cv-03903-JSR   Document 30   Filed 07/20/23   Page 1 of 34




                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
           FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


                                   Master Case No. 1:23-CV-03903 (JSR)
IN RE JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION              DERIVATIVE ACTION



        PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION
             TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
          Case 1:23-cv-03903-JSR                        Document 30                 Filed 07/20/23               Page 2 of 34




                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                          Page

CITATION CONVENTIONS ....................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 4
I.        COMPLIANCE WITH BSA/AML REGULATIONS IS MISSION-CRITICAL.............. 4
II.       JPM FAILED TO EVEN ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH ITS BSA/AML
          OBLIGATIONS WHILE EPSTEIN WAS A CLIENT ...................................................... 5
III.      THE BOARD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSENT ORDER AND
          DPA AFTER THE EPSTEIN RELATIONSHIP WAS TERMINATED........................... 5
IV.       DEFENDANTS’ BREACHES OF DUTY SIGNIFICANTLY HARMED JPM ............... 7
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7
I.        DEMAND IS EXCUSED BECAUSE A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD COULD
          NOT IMPARTIALLY

[…]

Open in the archive