HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023351.jpg
2.94 MB
Extraction Summary
10
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email chain
File Size:
2.94 MB
Summary
This document contains an email chain from May 1, 2015. The bottom email involves Jeffrey Epstein and Brad Wechsler being advised on the legal structure of a 'Picasso agreement' with Gagosian, specifically regarding liability if the purchase agreement is assigned to family trusts ('APO1', 'APO2') or 'the Black kids' (referring to Leon Black's family). The top section contains a text (likely drafted by Epstein to Leon Black) negotiating compensation; Epstein compares himself to 'Josh and Mark' (likely Apollo executives), mentions their actions generating $100 million, and proposes a 33% fee for himself, emphasizing a desire for a 'partnership structure'.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Recipient/Sender |
Addressed as 'Jeffrey', uses email 'jeevacation@gmail.com'. Appears to be the author of the top paragraph discussing ...
|
| Melanie Spinella | Recipient |
Received the forwarded email from Epstein with the comment 'silly'.
|
| Brad Wechsler | Recipient |
Addressed in the legal email regarding the Picasso agreement.
|
| Leon | Principal/Beneficiary |
Likely Leon Black. Mentioned as the primary owner/guarantor ('really, Leon's'). Associated with family trusts and Nar...
|
| Debra | Family Member |
Listed alongside Leon and 'the kids' as potential assignees.
|
| Larry | Counterparty |
Likely Larry Gagosian. Concerned about liability if the agreement is assigned to a trust with no assets.
|
| Josh | Associate |
Mentioned in top text ('actions of josh and mark led to one hundred million dollars'). Likely Josh Harris of Apollo.
|
| Mark | Associate |
Mentioned in top text alongside Josh. Likely Mark Rowan of Apollo.
|
| Ada | Advisor |
Provided advice regarding gift tax implications of guarantees.
|
| Alan | Advisor |
Discussed rearranging bank loans and mitigating risk via side agreements.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Gagosian |
Art gallery/seller involved in the 'Picasso agreement'.
|
|
| Narrows Holdings LLC |
Entity structured as the Buyer in the agreement.
|
|
| AP Narrows LP |
Alternative entity structured as the Buyer.
|
|
| APO1 |
Family trust involved in the structure.
|
|
| APO2 |
Family trust involved in the structure.
|
Timeline (2 events)
May 1, 2015
Negotiation of Picasso agreement terms regarding liability and assignment.
Email correspondence
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Sender of the legal email mentions being 'in the office'.
|
Relationships (3)
Epstein is included in high-level legal discussions regarding Leon's trusts and art purchases. The top text implies Epstein is negotiating a partnership fee with Leon.
Epstein compares his compensation and effort to 'Josh and Mark' (likely Apollo executives).
Epstein forwards a complex legal email to her with the comment 'silly'.
Key Quotes (5)
"if the actions of josh and mark led to one hundred million dollars , what would be their share."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023351.jpg
Quote #1
"I proposed 33 percent of money made for you. . in the past you agreed that amount."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023351.jpg
Quote #2
"Larry is concerned that we might assign to the Black kids or to a trust that has no assets"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023351.jpg
Quote #3
"Gagosian has one final change to the Picasso agreement."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023351.jpg
Quote #4
"I focus on trust and friendship first, and the fact that you don't include josh and mark in that category, gives me great pause"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023351.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,161 characters)
your personal bottom line has increased dramatically, if you had thought of me as your partner in this endeavor , instead of an employee, i think your reaction to sharing t benefits would be different.
If you recall, you wanted me to be paid , unlike others at the END of my work. we discussed this ad nauseum, and agreed OCT 15, last year was the end . You had wanted more comfort initially on the art partnership so that date was delayed. It has now been six monhts since then, your concept of aftercare . . for free. was already unique , in your words this has to have an end.( weaned ) if the actions of josh and mark led to one hundred million dollars , what would be their share. Im not sure why it is different in your mind. but i respect the fact that it is, Is it because their work seems harder. it cannot be simply because they devote more time to you .or it appears to involve more effort. I am happy to continue to play a partnership role. as I have been in many areas of your life. . I am also happy to move on and have no more of these emails. I find them as tedious as you do . if you prefer a partnership structure , ok with me, I tried to minimize the amount of money i would recieve by making it a flat fee . as i wanted you to feel good and have no second thoguths somehow if the payment comes from a partnership structure you seem relaxed as opposed to writing a check, I focus on trust and friendship first, and the fact that you don't include josh and mark in that category, gives me great pause . I proposed 33 percent of money made for you. . in the past you agreed that amount. it will be huge, but ok with me, I can talk today at 945 as you suggested. or if you woudl rather over the weekend ok
If you recall, you wanted me to be paid , unlike others at the END of my work. we discussed this ad nauseum, and agreed OCT 15, last year was the end . You had wanted more comfort initially on the art partnership so that date was delayed. It has now been six monhts since then, your concept of aftercare . . for free. was already unique , in your words this has to have an end.( weaned ) if the actions of josh and mark led to one hundred million dollars , what would be their share. Im not sure why it is different in your mind. but i respect the fact that it is, Is it because their work seems harder. it cannot be simply because they devote more time to you .or it appears to involve more effort. I am happy to continue to play a partnership role. as I have been in many areas of your life. . I am also happy to move on and have no more of these emails. I find them as tedious as you do . if you prefer a partnership structure , ok with me, I tried to minimize the amount of money i would recieve by making it a flat fee . as i wanted you to feel good and have no second thoguths somehow if the payment comes from a partnership structure you seem relaxed as opposed to writing a check, I focus on trust and friendship first, and the fact that you don't include josh and mark in that category, gives me great pause . I proposed 33 percent of money made for you. . in the past you agreed that amount. it will be huge, but ok with me, I can talk today at 945 as you suggested. or if you woudl rather over the weekend ok
Date: Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:08 PM
Subject: Fwd: Picasso agreement - question
To: Melanie Spinella [REDACTED]
silly
Subject: Fwd: Picasso agreement - question
To: Melanie Spinella [REDACTED]
silly
Date: Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM
Subject: Picasso agreement - question
To: Brad Wechsler [REDACTED], "Jeffrey Epstein (jeevacation@gmail.com)"
Subject: Picasso agreement - question
To: Brad Wechsler [REDACTED], "Jeffrey Epstein (jeevacation@gmail.com)"
Brad and Jeffrey,
Gagosian has one final change to the Picasso agreement. As you know, we have structured this agreement with the Buyer as either Narrows Holdings LLC or AP Narrows LP, and given both of those entities the right to assign the agreement to any one among Leon, Debra, the kids, or family trusts including APO1 and APO2.
Gagosian wants us to agree that, if Narrows/AP Narrows assigns the agreement to someone else, Narrows/AP Narrows “shall not be discharged from its liabilities under this Agreement and shall remain primarily liable to Seller.” Larry is concerned that we might assign to the Black kids or to a trust that has no assets, and then when he has to sue us because we don’t make the final payment of the purchase price but have possession of the art, the entity/person to which we have assigned the agreement has no money.
I think this is a valid concern and that we should agree to it.
However, Ada just reminded me that it is possible that Narrows/AP Narrows (really, Leon’s) agreeing to effectively guarantee payment by the assignee might be considered a gift to the assignee. In the discussions with Alan about rearranging the bank loan once AP Narrows is operational, Alan agreed that there could be deemed to be a potential gift from Leon to APO1/APO2 if Leon provides a guarantee to the bank that is for the benefit of the trusts as partners in AP Narrows. Alan suggested mitigating this risk by having the trusts sign side agreements with Leon which say that if AP Narrows defaults on the loan and the bank goes after Leon on his guarantee, the trusts will make him whole.
This issue only arises if we assign the agreement. The risk is also limited in time because it would run from the moment we assigned the agreement until the final payment is made, which even if we assigned immediately after signing, would only be 11 1/2 months.
Shall I agree to Gagosian’s request that Narrows/AP Narrows remain liable even if they assign the agreement?
I’m in the office if you would like to discuss this, but I would love to get back to Gagosian ASAP so we can have this agreement signed today.
Thanks,
Gagosian has one final change to the Picasso agreement. As you know, we have structured this agreement with the Buyer as either Narrows Holdings LLC or AP Narrows LP, and given both of those entities the right to assign the agreement to any one among Leon, Debra, the kids, or family trusts including APO1 and APO2.
Gagosian wants us to agree that, if Narrows/AP Narrows assigns the agreement to someone else, Narrows/AP Narrows “shall not be discharged from its liabilities under this Agreement and shall remain primarily liable to Seller.” Larry is concerned that we might assign to the Black kids or to a trust that has no assets, and then when he has to sue us because we don’t make the final payment of the purchase price but have possession of the art, the entity/person to which we have assigned the agreement has no money.
I think this is a valid concern and that we should agree to it.
However, Ada just reminded me that it is possible that Narrows/AP Narrows (really, Leon’s) agreeing to effectively guarantee payment by the assignee might be considered a gift to the assignee. In the discussions with Alan about rearranging the bank loan once AP Narrows is operational, Alan agreed that there could be deemed to be a potential gift from Leon to APO1/APO2 if Leon provides a guarantee to the bank that is for the benefit of the trusts as partners in AP Narrows. Alan suggested mitigating this risk by having the trusts sign side agreements with Leon which say that if AP Narrows defaults on the loan and the bank goes after Leon on his guarantee, the trusts will make him whole.
This issue only arises if we assign the agreement. The risk is also limited in time because it would run from the moment we assigned the agreement until the final payment is made, which even if we assigned immediately after signing, would only be 11 1/2 months.
Shall I agree to Gagosian’s request that Narrows/AP Narrows remain liable even if they assign the agreement?
I’m in the office if you would like to discuss this, but I would love to get back to Gagosian ASAP so we can have this agreement signed today.
Thanks,
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023351
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document