DOJ-OGR-00021752.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
8
Organizations
6
Locations
0
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (page 10 of 35)
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This document is page 10 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, filed 07/27/2023) arguing legal precedents for 'third-party beneficiary' standing in non-prosecution and plea agreements. It cites multiple cases (*Stolt-Nielsen*, *Florida West Int'l Airways*, *El-Sadig*, *CFW Const. Co.*) to establish that individuals not explicitly named or communicated with can still be immune from prosecution if they are intended beneficiaries of an agreement between the government and another party. This legal argument is central to the defense's claims regarding the 2007 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| El-Sadig | Defendant (in cited case) |
Cited in U.S. v. El-Sadig; example of a third-party beneficiary enforcing a non-prosecution agreement.
|
| Stolt-Nielsen | Defendant (in cited case) |
Cited in U.S. v. Stolt-Nielsen; directors/officers benefited from leniency agreement.
|
| Colon | Defendant (in cited case) |
Cited in U.S. v. Colon regarding plea agreement interpretation.
|
| Altrom | Defendant (in cited case) |
Cited in U.S. v. Altrom.
|
| Bochese | Plaintiff (in cited case) |
Cited in Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ Antitrust Division |
Party in the Stolt-Nielsen agreement.
|
|
| Stolt-Nielsen |
Company involved in cited litigation.
|
|
| Florida West Int’l Airways, Inc. |
Company involved in cited litigation.
|
|
| CFW Const. Co., Inc. |
Company involved in cited litigation.
|
|
| Subaru Distribs. Corp. |
Company involved in cited litigation.
|
|
| Subaru of Am., Inc. |
Company involved in cited litigation.
|
|
| Town of Ponce Inlet |
Municipality involved in cited litigation.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer).
|
Locations (6)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Court jurisdiction)
|
|
|
Southern District of Florida (Court jurisdiction)
|
|
|
Northern District of Ohio (Court jurisdiction)
|
|
|
District of South Carolina (Court jurisdiction)
|
|
|
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
|
Relationships (2)
Identified as intended third-party beneficiaries of the agreement between DOJ and Stolt-Nielsen.
Employee of Florida West Int’l Airways
→
Legal/Contractual
→
Government
Employee had standing to establish immunity under the Plea Agreement between the Government and his employer.
Key Quotes (4)
"“[E]ven if the non-prosecution agreement was never directly communicated to Defendant El-Sadig, he can enforce the non-prosecution agreement as a third party beneficiary”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021752.jpg
Quote #1
"“Plea agreements are interpreted in accordance with contract law principles”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021752.jpg
Quote #2
"“[A]n intended third party beneficiary of a contract may enforce its provisions”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021752.jpg
Quote #3
"“intended third-party beneficiaries of the [Conditional Leniency] Agreement”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021752.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,722 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page10 of 35
See U.S. v. Stolt-Nielsen, 524 F.Supp.2d 609, 613-14, 620-23, 628 (E.D. Pa. 2007)
(dismissing indictment against Stolt-Nielsen’s “directors and/or officers,” as they
were “intended third-party beneficiaries of the [Conditional Leniency] Agreement”
between the DOJ Antitrust Division and Stolt-Nielsen); U.S. v. Florida West Int’l
Airways, Inc., 853 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1228-32 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing indictment
against employee of air cargo provider, as he had “third party beneficiary standing
necessary to establish [his] immunity under the Plea Agreement” between the
Government and his employer); U.S. v. El-Sadig, 133 F.Supp.2d 600 (N.D. Ohio
2001) (“[E]ven if the non-prosecution agreement was never directly communicated
to Defendant El-Sadig, he can enforce the non-prosecution agreement as a third party
beneficiary”); U.S. v. CFW Const. Co., Imc., 583 F.Supp. 197 (D.S.C. 1984) (“[A]n
intended third party beneficiary of a contract may enforce its provisions....Thus, if
the Government, in negotiating the aforementioned plea agreements, ‘promised’ that
there would be no prosecution against CFW...the promise must be enforced.”).
(dismissing indictment against Stolt-Nielsen’s “directors and/or officers,” as they
were “intended third-party beneficiaries of the [Conditional Leniency] Agreement”
between the DOJ Antitrust Division and Stolt-Nielsen); U.S. v. Florida West Int’l
Airways, Inc., 853 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1228-32 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing indictment
against employee of air cargo provider, as he had “third party beneficiary standing
necessary to establish [his] immunity under the Plea Agreement” between the
Government and his employer); U.S. v. El-Sadig, 133 F.Supp.2d 600 (N.D. Ohio
2001) (“[E]ven if the non-prosecution agreement was never directly communicated
to Defendant El-Sadig, he can enforce the non-prosecution agreement as a third party
beneficiary”); U.S. v. CFW Const. Co., Imc., 583 F.Supp. 197 (D.S.C. 1984) (“[A]n
intended third party beneficiary of a contract may enforce its provisions....Thus, if
the Government, in negotiating the aforementioned plea agreements, ‘promised’ that
there would be no prosecution against CFW...the promise must be enforced.”).
This rule makes sense. “Plea agreements are interpreted in accordance with
contract law principles,” U.S. v. Colon, 220 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing U.S.
v. Altrom 180 F.3d 372, 275 (2d Cir. 1999)), and it is hornbook contract law that an
intended third-party beneficiary may enforce a contract. See Subaru Distribs. Corp.
v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 425 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2005); Bochese v. Town of Ponce
Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005). There is no reason to treat plea or non-
contract law principles,” U.S. v. Colon, 220 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing U.S.
v. Altrom 180 F.3d 372, 275 (2d Cir. 1999)), and it is hornbook contract law that an
intended third-party beneficiary may enforce a contract. See Subaru Distribs. Corp.
v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 425 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2005); Bochese v. Town of Ponce
Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005). There is no reason to treat plea or non-
4
DOJ-OGR-00021752
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document