Seventeen state attorneys general challenge the wording in JPMorgan Chase's settlement regarding the late Jeffrey Epstein.
In a letter made public, attorneys general from 16 states and Washington, D.C., have expressed their objections to a $290 million class-action settlement reached between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's accusers. The letter, written by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, argues that the settlement agreement does not fully compensate Epstein's surviving victims for the harm they have suffered and includes a provision that limits governments from seeking damages related to sex trafficking.
The states argue that this provision in the settlement agreement improperly seeks to release claims for victim-specific relief. Torrez asserted that the language in the JPMorgan Chase settlement deters attorneys from seeking damages across the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, not just in Epstein's case.
The attorneys general who signed the letter include those from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. The U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies have also expressed similar concerns, arguing in a public letter on Monday that the language in the settlement impedes the pursuit of injury claims by governments for victims of human trafficking.
Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York must give final approval on the settlement. The final approval hearing is set for Nov. 9, according to court records. The court has ordered JPMorgan and Epstein's accusers to address the states' objection by Nov. 6.
Lawyers for Epstein's accusers did not immediately respond to similar requests for comment. JPMorgan did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment regarding the states' objection to the settlement.
The settlement includes a provision that limits governments from seeking damages related to sex trafficking, which is the subject of the states' objection. Torrez wrote that the settlement agreement does not fully compensate Epstein's surviving victims for the harm they have suffered. The states argue that the settlement should not limit their ability to seek damages for victim-specific relief.
The attorneys general argue that the settlement does not fully compensate Jeffrey Epstein's surviving victims for the harm they have suffered and that it should not limit their ability to seek damages for victim-specific relief. Deutsche Bank's settlement with alleged Epstein victims does not include similar language, according to Torrez.
This development adds another layer of complexity to the Jeffrey Epstein case, as the settlement between JPMorgan and Epstein's accusers faces objections from both the states and the victims' lawyers. The final approval hearing is set for Nov. 9, and it remains to be seen whether the settlement will be approved as it stands or if modifications will be made to address the states' concerns.
Read also:
- Understanding Hemorrhagic Gastroenteritis: Key Facts
- Stopping Osteoporosis Treatment: Timeline Considerations
- Trump's Policies: Tariffs, AI, Surveillance, and Possible Martial Law
- Expanded Community Health Involvement by CK Birla Hospitals, Jaipur, Maintained Through Consistent Outreach Programs Across Rajasthan
