
JP Morgan And Their Opposition To Jes Staley Dismissing The Lawsuit (Part 3) (9/5/26)
About this episode
JPMorgan Chase’s memorandum of law opposed Jes Staley’s effort to dismiss the bank’s third-party claims against him in the Epstein litigation, arguing that Staley’s own conduct was central to why JPMorgan faced massive legal exposure in the first place. The bank portrayed Staley as far more than an executive who happened to know Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that he was Epstein’s principal internal advocate at JPMorgan, maintained an extraordinarily close personal relationship with him and repeatedly supported keeping Epstein as a client despite mounting internal concerns. JPMorgan argued that Staley had access to information about Epstein that he failed to disclose to the bank, while simultaneously using his senior position to reassure colleagues about the relationship. According to the bank, those circumstances supported claims that Staley breached his fiduciary duties, failed to act in JPMorgan’s interests and concealed information that would have been highly relevant to the bank’s decisions about whether to continue doing business with Epstein.
JPMorgan also rejected Staley’s argument that the bank was simply trying to shift responsibility for its own failures onto him. Instead, it maintained that the settlements, litigation costs and reputational damage arising from the Epstein relationship were precisely the kinds of losses for which Staley could potentially be held responsible if the allegations against him were proven. The bank emphasized that its claims rested on Staley’s individual duties as a senior executive and on allegations that his undisclosed personal relationship with Epstein conflicted with those obligations. In practical terms, JPMorgan was telling the court that if Staley knew more about Epstein than he revealed, advocated internally for Epstein while withholding that knowledge and exposed the bank to enormous liability as a result, he should not be allowed to walk away from the litigation at the pleading stage. The filing therefore represented a remarkable reversal in the Epstein story: JPMorgan, which had spent years defending its own relationship with Epstein, was now arguing that one of its most powerful former executives bore significant personal responsibility for keeping Epstein inside the bank.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Get every episode summarized
Each time The Vault: The Epstein Files publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
Transcript ready
119 searchable segments. Every word is indexed and playable.
Full transcript
The Vault: The Epstein Files — JP Morgan And Their Opposition To Jes Staley Dismissing The Lawsuit (Part 3) (9/5/26). Machine-transcribed; use the interactive transcript above to jump the player to any line.
Hi, this is Dave Roberts. Heading into summer without a medical emergency kit, that's a risk. Summer colds can linger and getting sick on vacation can derail everything. That's why everyone needs a medical emergency kit. It includes Dr. prescribed medications to treat common and serious illnesses. So if you wake up sick, at home or on the road, you already have what you need. It's like having an urgent care and pharmacy at home. Say $45 with code blue at urgentcarekit.com slash blue urgent care kit.com slash blue. Enjoy big savings with Red Hot deals at Vons and Albertsons. This week at Vons and Albertsons, baby back pork ribs are 2.99 per pound with membership where applicable limit three racks. And ballpark hot dogs or hamburger buns eight count are 2.99 with digital coupon. Plus personal seedless watermelons or canelope are 1.99 each with digital coupon. Enjoy fresh and delicious savings for every meal. Hurry in, these deals won't last. Visit vons or Albertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.
Hi, this is Dave Roberts. Heading into summer without a medical emergency kit, that's a risk. Summer colds can linger and getting sick on vacation can derail everything. That's why everyone needs a medical emergency kit. It includes Dr. prescribed medications to treat common and serious illnesses. So if you wake up sick, at home or on the road, you already have what you need. It's like having an urgent care and pharmacy at home. Say $45 with code blue at urgentcare kit.com slash blue urgent care kit.com slash blue. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. This episode we're picking up where we left off with the JP Morgan, USVI and Jess Staley paperwork. Part 3. Staley's additional attacks on JPMC's identity claims are meritless. A Delaware law and JPMC's bylaws and power JPMC to bring an identity claim against daily 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 judge liable to the corporation. Delaware code title, 8 section 145 B. 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 Connor vs. Seaboard, Communications Corporation 32, Delaware CH143 144 82 A.2D 102 102 1951. Observing that an insolven 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 in power is JPMC to bring this lawsuit against daily. 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 145 A. ID at section 145 B. 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. Seaboard filled vs. stifled financial corporation 1991 W.L. 41 3393 at 2.
Delaware Chamber of Commerce June 11th 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. Wal-Took vs. Conta Commodity Services Incorporated 88 F.3 D87 93 Second Circuit 1996. The Delaware good faith clause must mean that there is no power to identify a Wal-Took 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. In Dull Food Company Incorporated Stockholder Litigation 2015 W.L. 505 2214 at 39. Here JPMC's third party complaint alleges that Staley repeatedly abandoned the interest of JPMC and served his own and Epstein's interest. JPMC complaint at 17.
And continuously breached his fiduciary duty acting against the interest of JPMC and in his own personal interest 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 Signor Actors Company vs. Allied Outdoor Advertisement Incorporated 573 NYS 2D 513 514 1st Department 1991 B. Doe and USVI's attempts to claim direct liability against JPMC do not preclude 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 liable 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 ex-trafficking venture through Staley. C. E. G. Doe FAC 135 164 205 206 230 and 231 239 327 328 and 360 and the USVI 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. E. 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 in 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 alleged 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. Enjoy big savings with Red Hot deals at Vonson Albertsons. This week at Vonson Albertsons, baby back pork ribs are 299 per pound with membership where applicable limit 3 racks and ballpark hot dogs or hamburger buns 8 count are 299 with digital coupon. Plus personal seedless watermelons or canelope are 199 each with digital coupon. Enjoy fresh and delicious savings for every meal. Hurry in, these deals won't last. Visit vonsoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save. Earn your Farm D in as little as 33 months with West Coast University's hybrid program no bachelor's degree required. Eligible transfer credits may be accepted West Coast University as real as it gets. Visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. Your path to pharmacy can be closer than you think. West Coast University's hybrid doctor of pharmacy program can be completed in as little as 33 months and no bachelor's degree is required to apply.
If you've started pharmacy coursework elsewhere, WCU may accept eligible transfer credits to help students keep moving forward. Learn online, train hands-on at our Center for Graduate Studies in Los Angeles and prepare for real world pharmacy practice. West Coast University as real as it gets. Visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. See, stalee scope of employment argument is misguided. Stalee also argues that JPMC's identification claim must be dismissed because it seeks to hold Mr. Stalee accountable for actions outside the scope of his responsibilities at the bank. Motion at 14, but while JPMC argues that many of stalee's alleged and appropriate activities criminal and otherwise fall outside his employment scope, JPMC can plan 42. Doh explicitly alleges that stalee 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 JN-1.
And personally observed the sexual abuse of young women, including JN-1. Given the parties competing factual allegations, Stalee's attempt to dismiss the identity claim at this early stage should be rejected. See Bochamp vs. City in New York 771, nys.2d129, 131 Second Department 2004. Riviello vs. Waldron, 47 and Y2D297303 at 1979. Whether Stalee 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. Stalee kept JPMC in the dark along the same lines, the good faith efforts of other employees at JPMC who made the final call. Were unmistakably and unknowingly influenced by Stalee's failure to report material information whether criminal or not, while vouching for Epstein as and his character, acts and omissions solely within Stalee's province.
See Motion at 14, citing Corlea vs. County Squire apartments incorporated, 820, nys.2d900, 2nd Department 2006. The worst of Stalee'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 Stalee's failure to disclose information or as other misconduct gives rise to vicarious liability for JPMC. Part 4. JPMC has stated a claim for contribution. Contribution is available where two or more torqued feasers can bind to cause an injury and is determined in accordance with a relative culpability of each such person. Goodoy vs. Abumaster of Miami 754 nys.2d301 306, 2nd Department 2003. Internal quotation marks and citations omitted. See nycplr section 1401.
As Stalee acknowledges Motion at 15, JPMC states a claim for contribution if it alleges that Stalee 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 WL193149 at 17, SDNY 2002. JPMC's third party complaint adequately states a contribution claim. It incorporates the allegations of DO and USVI accusing Stalee of observing specific trafficking victims including DO, raping DO, and engaging in conduct that suggests participation in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. See egJPMC compliance 22 and 33. JPMC's third party complaint makes clear that if those allegations are true Stalee caused harm to DO 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 Stalee acknowledges JPMC may base its contribution claim on Stalee's duty to JPMC, Motion at 15, thus Stalee's contention that there is no allegation that Stalee owed a duty to DO or the USVI is irrelevant. ID at 15, JPMC complaints 17, 37, 58, and his assertions that JPMC fell to adequately to alleged Stalee breached his fiduciary duty as mistaken. Stalee's contention that JPMC is not adequately pled to Stalee caused the same harm as JPMC supposedly did, fairs no better. JPMC's Impleter complaint makes it clear that Stalee'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. Stalee argues that the crux of plaintiffs complaints is that JPMC provided the financial lifeblood of Epstein's ex-trafficking venture, which is a different sort of misconduct than Stalee engaged in.
Even if that were true, it would be of no consequence. Contribution of rules applied 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 Cremons, Wolf, and Munir versus Westchester County, 455, and YS2D39391, Second Department 1982. That JPMC's alleged liability may be based on different grounds, thus does not foreclose its contribution claim for the plaintiffs' injuries. Alright, we're going to wrap up this episode right here, and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Part 5. 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. Earn your Farm D in as little as 33 months with West Coast University's hybrid program No Bachelors Degree Required.
Eligible transfer credits may be accepted. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. Your path to pharmacy can be closer than you think. West Coast University's hybrid doctor of pharmacy program can be completed in as little as 33 months, and no bachelor's degree is required to apply. If you've started pharmacy coursework elsewhere, WCU may accept eligible transfer credits to help students keep moving forward. Learn online, train hands-on at our Center for Graduate Studies in Los Angeles, and prepare for real-world pharmacy practice. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment. Earn your Farm D in as little as 33 months with West Coast University's hybrid program No Bachelors Degree Required. Eligible transfer credits may be accepted. West Coast University, as real as it gets, visit westcoastuniversity.edu. WCU cannot guarantee employment.
More episodes
More from The Vault: The Epstein Files

The USVI Unleashes More Exhibits Detailing JP Morgan's Ties To Jeffrey Epstein (...
The Vault: The Epstein Files

Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And The Evidence Pointing To Who Was On The Plane...
The Vault: The Epstein Files

Mega Edition: The Epstein Survivors And Their Secondary Role In Their Own Stor...
The Vault: The Epstein Files

Mega Edition: Prince Andrew And The Silence That Told Us Everything We Needed T...
The Vault: The Epstein Files