From: Richard Joslin cl To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Sun Capital Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:05:29 +0000 I have signature for DRB. From: Jeffrey Epstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:03 PM To: Richard Joslin Subject: Re: Sun Capital what abiout the stamp? On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Richard Joslin < wrote: DRB is out of pocket. Peggy is looking for someone to get signed for her. I will ask Melanie the timing for LDB From: Jeffrey Epstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:58 PM To: Richard Joslin Subject: Re: Sun Capital pons? On Tue, Mar II, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Richard Joslin > wrote: A win for the PBGC. And no implication regarding the tax spillover, ie PE funds engaged in the business of promoter/dealer. sun-capital-pension-liability-case?newsletter—altematives- gligest&issue=20140304&utm_source=Newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign ives+Digest# Supreme Court declines to intervene in Sun Capital pension liability case By Hazel Bradford I March 4, 2014 4:22 pm I Updated 9:09 am Altemat The Supreme Court declined on Monday to intervene in a case challenging whether private equity firms could be liable for pension liabilities of portfolio companies. Private equity firm Sun Capital Partners wanted the high court to overturn a July 24 ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that two of its funds were actively engaged as a trade or business in a now-bankrupt portfolio company, Scott Brass Inc., which owes $4.5 million in withdrawal liability to the New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund. The appellate court decision overturned a 2012 ruling from a U.S. District Court in Massachusetts that the funds were merely passive investors. The lower court still has to rule on ownership issues. EFTA00985061