DRAFT April 7, 2010 Sent by Fax and U.S. Mail Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Re: Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Dear Mr. Scarola: I am in receipt of your March 17, 2010 letter providing my client and his attorneys with your F.S. §57.105 Notice. As you are aware, USA filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein on December 1St, 2009 alleging among other things, racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, mail and wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud. The Complaint sets forth allegations directed to Mr. Rothstein and others as yet unnamed co-conspirators who participated in the Ponzi scheme. Mr. Rothstein through his attorney, Marc Nurik, has pled guilty to these incredible charges and is awaiting sentencing. Prior to receiving your Notice, and again as a result of receiving your Notice, I have sought and will continue to seek the deposition of Mr. Rothstein. Obviously, Mr. Rothstein can shed substantial light on issues that directly impact our clients. However, Mr. Nurik indicated to me that Mr. Rothstein would be unavailable for a deposition at any time in the near future. I have noticed Mr. Rothstein's deposition on April 15, 2010 (solely on the default issue), recognizing the fact that he might not appear and that his attorney will file a motion for protective order or he will assert a privilege and not testify. But his deposition testimony on the factual issues is critical in evaluating your Notice and Mr. Epstein's case against Mr. Edwards. Additionally, as part of a preservation order sought and obtained in the Jane Doe case, a case principally handled by Mr. Edwards both prior to his employment/association with RRA, during his employment/association with RRA and at the current time, I served subpoenas in late 2009 directed not only to Mr. Edwards but as well Mr. Stettin in his then capacity as Receiver for RRA. The attomeys f