Epstein Victims' Compensation Program

Name	Independent Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program (“Epstein VCP”)1
Proposed	By the estate’s co-executors to the Probate Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands, November 14, 20192
Designers	Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana H. Feldman3
Administrator	Jordana H. Feldman3
Protocol	Dated May 29, 2020; the programme’s own FAQ states the Probate Court approved the programme on June 3, 202014
Funding	Epstein estate assets, replenished on request; “no cap or limitation” on the aggregate or on any individual award; all compensation offers were held from February 4 to March 29, 2021 after the estate told the administrator it could not fund them156
Claims period	June 25, 2020 to March 25, 2021; registration deadline February 8, 20217
Condition of payment	An executed release, and dismissal with prejudice of existing actions against the estate and related entities and individuals89
Reported outcome	The programme’s own closing announcement of August 9, 2021 reports about 225 claims, nearly $125 million awarded to about 150 eligible claimants, 92 per cent of eligible claimants accepted and over $121 million paid10

Content warning: this page concerns a compensation programme for survivors of sexual abuse.

The Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program was a voluntary claims-resolution programme funded by the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, under a protocol dated May 29, 2020 which provided that the programme would operate independently of the estate.¹ It was proposed to the Probate Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands by the estate’s co-executors on November 14, 2019, opened for claims on June 25, 2020, and announced the conclusion of its claimant-facing operations on August 9, 2021.²³¹⁰ Its terms offered an award subject to no cap, an evidentiary standard under which an undocumented claim could succeed on a credible account, and eligibility unaffected by any limitation period; and required in exchange a release of all past and future claims against the estate and the entities and individuals named in that release, dismissal with prejudice of any existing action, and a reporting obligation that was confidential, monthly and in the aggregate only.¹⁸⁹¹¹ This page is the fuller account of the programme itself: its design, protocol, funding, reported outcome and the litigation over its confidentiality; the record’s designations and pseudonyms, and how the record counts victims rather than claimants, are covered at Victims in the Epstein record.

The alternative that was considered first: forfeiture

Four days after Epstein’s death, an email headed “Epstein Forfeiture Options” was sent from an account tagged “(USANYS)” at 2:14 p.m. on August 14, 2019.¹² The sender’s name, the addressees and several names in the body are blacked out on the page; the writer is therefore not identified here, and neither is any victim.¹² The writer describes the message as “a brief overview of my assessment of our options” ahead of a meeting that afternoon and sets out three “bottom lines”: that there was “a potentially viable action against the New York property, albeit with significant litigation risk”; that a “resolution with the Estate involving a victim compensation fund outside the forfeiture process would be most likely to fully compensate victims”; and that it was possible that even without such a resolution “the victims would be better served by litigating directly against the Estate rather than our pursuing a forfeiture”.¹²

The property assessment is set out separately for each jurisdiction. For New York, the writer records trafficking offences involving six victims connected to the property that “could potentially withstand a statute of limitations challenge”, subject to further investigation of when the offences could have been discovered, and to the cooperation and testimony of the victims concerned.¹² For the U.S. Virgin Islands, the team “has met with one witness” and further investigative work was needed.¹² For Florida, the writer states that forfeiture based on the only offences for which there was evidence and venue could not credibly be argued to be within time.¹²

The reason given for preferring a fund is the limit of the federal remission process, which the message records as “confirmed with MLARS team responsible for victim compensation”.¹³ Compensation from civilly forfeited funds “would be basically limited to provable medical and psychiatric expenses (past and future) and lost wages minimum wage for the time they were being trafficked”, with no recovery for “broader pain and suffering or punitive-style damages”.¹³ The writer’s assessment was that “I think it’s extremely likely that the numbers involved would be very modest per victim, and potentially result in the U.S. retaining tens of millions of dollars rather than it going to the victims.”¹³ The message also records “extremely preliminary suggestions of a Victim Compensation Fund paid out of the Estate and supervised by Ken Feinstein or an equivalent receiver”; that spelling is the document’s own.¹³ Nothing on this page turns on who was meant by it.

The same passage identifies a tension the programme later inherited. Individual victims “willing to subject themselves to deposition and trial testimony would receive a much greater potential financial benefit if they succeeded in direct litigation against the Estate”, from which the writer draws the inference that “our critical victim witnesses may not be willing to cooperate with a forfeiture action when they realize their interests are better served by independent actions”.¹³

Establishment

The programme was created through the probate of Epstein’s estate, not through the federal case. On November 14, 2019 the co-executors, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, filed an expedited motion in Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 seeking the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands’ approval to retain “three independent, nationally recognized claims administration experts”, Jordana Feldman, Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros, “to design and implement a mass tort-type program”.² A later filing in the same matter records that seventeen suits involving twenty-six plaintiffs were then pending against the estate, and asks the court to authorise the use of estate funds to retain “the proposed Program Administrator and Program Designers” and to fund the design of a protocol, which the co-executors said they would submit to the court for approval before claims proceedings began.²¹⁴

The protocol is dated May 29, 2020.¹ The programme’s published answers to frequently asked questions state that the Probate Court approved the programme on June 3, 2020.⁴ Claims opened on June 25, 2020, announced that day in a press release which names Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana (“Jordy”) H. Feldman as the programme’s “Co-Designers” and states that the programme “will be administered by Ms. Feldman (the ‘Administrator’)”, who had been deputy special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.³ The same release records that the design took “input from attorneys representing over 70 victims, the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, the Epstein Estate and other interested parties”; that figure describes the clients of the lawyers consulted, and the release does not offer it as a total.³

What the programme offered, and what it required

The protocol states that there is “no cap or limitation on the aggregate amount of funds available to compensate all eligible Claimants or on the amount of compensation to be made to each individual Claimant”, that each claim would be evaluated separately, and that the administrator would decide eligibility and amount “in her sole and exclusive discretion”, with the estate paying all eligible claims on her determination.¹ She had “final, binding and exclusive authority” to determine eligibility and valuation, and her decisions were not subject to review or modification “in any way by the Estate or any other party or entity”.¹

Eligibility ran to individuals alleging sexual abuse by Epstein, and expressly reached claims that were “time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations” and claims by people who had already settled with him.⁸ One further criterion addressed the line between a victim and a participant: an individual “who allegedly assisted Epstein in procuring other victims-survivors may participate in the Program where there is a credible basis to determine that the individual acted under duress as a result of her own sexual abuse by Epstein, provided that other eligibility criteria are met”.⁸ On proof, the protocol directs the administrator to weigh documentation, corroboration and circumstantial evidence, giving medical or counselling records and contemporaneous correspondence about the abuse as non-exhaustive examples, and adds that “some Claimants may not be able to provide any documentation to corroborate their Claim based on the nature and circumstances of Epstein’s conduct” and that a claimant whose written and oral presentation the administrator found credible “may still be eligible for compensation”.¹⁵¹⁶ The programme’s FAQ adds that a claimant without documents would be “afforded an opportunity to meet with the Administrator and provide an oral presentation”.¹⁷

Against that, the protocol sets out what acceptance cost. A claimant who accepted an offer had to sign “a full Release, in a form satisfactory to the Estate, of all past and future claims (including lis pendens, writs of attachment, etc.)” relating to allegations of sexual abuse “against the Estate, related entities and/or related individuals”, waiving the rights of the claimant “and her heirs, descendants, legatees or beneficiaries” to bring or take part in any civil action about those allegations, “except as a witness”.⁹ Acceptance also required dismissal with prejudice of any existing lawsuit, action or claim against the estate or related entities and individuals, with proof of dismissal before payment.⁸⁹ The offer was open for sixty days.¹⁶

Two limits on that bargain are also in the protocol. The release “will not impose any rules of confidentiality on claimants, who are expressly permitted to discuss their allegations without restriction, should they choose”, and a claimant had to consult a lawyer of her own choosing before signing, with the programme providing and paying for one if she had none.⁹ Participation itself required no concession: the protocol states that individuals who had filed suit “need not agree to a stay of litigation or make any other concession in any pending litigation to be eligible to participate”, and that those who had not filed remained free to do so and to litigate concurrently.¹⁸

The programme’s own record was designed to close. Personal information provided by a claimant was to be “returned or destroyed within one year after the conclusion of the Program”; the files were not open to inspection by the estate, or by claimants, during or after the programme; and the administrator’s only reporting obligation was a confidential monthly report to the Probate Court and the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands “regarding the number and total value of claims paid each month”, which “will report on an aggregate level only”.¹¹

Funding, and the suspension of offers in 2021

The programme was funded from estate assets and depended on the estate replenishing them. On February 4, 2021 the administrator wrote to claimants’ counsel, over her signature, that “due to uncertainty about the liquidity of Estate assets to fund the Program, effective immediately, all compensation determination offers will be held” until after the March 25, 2021 filing deadline or until she had “sufficient certainty that eligible claims can be timely and fully funded and paid”.⁵ The letter states that under the protocol the estate had agreed to “pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator’s determination” and had represented that sufficient assets and liquidity existed, and that it was required to replenish the funds when they fell below a designated threshold; and that on February 3, 2021 the estate informed her “that it did not have sufficient liquidity to fully satisfy the most recent request for replenishment and that it could not predict when additional liquidity would be secured”.⁵ Claims would continue to be accepted and reviewed, and offers already issued would continue to be paid.⁵ The letter was filed with the court the same day in a pending action against the co-executors in the Southern District of New York.¹⁹

The suspension was lifted on March 29, 2021. A press release of that date, filed in the probate matter, records that the estate had notified the administrator that it had completed the sales of Epstein’s New York City and Palm Beach residences and “transferred approximately $10,000,000 to the Program”, with assurances to her, to the Probate Court and to others that further proceeds would be made available, and that on that basis she had determined there was sufficient certainty and lifted the suspension.⁶ The same release reports that the programme had by then “received over 175 claims” and “paid out over $67 million to eligible claimants”.⁶

What the programme reported having done

The programme announced the conclusion of its claimant-facing operations on August 9, 2021, roughly a year after it opened.¹⁰ Its announcement states that it “awarded nearly $125 million to approximately 150 eligible claimants”, that “Ninety-two percent (92%) of eligible claimants accepted their compensation offers”, and that it “paid over $121 million to those claimants”.¹⁰ It reports that the number of claims submitted, approximately 225, “far exceeded original expectations that 100 claims would be filed”, and that claims were generally processed and paid within sixty to ninety days including a meeting with the administrator and a sixty-day period for the claimant to consider the offer.¹⁰ These are the programme’s own figures, in its own announcement. A brief filed by the United States in the Maxwell prosecution on November 19, 2021 repeats them and cites that release as its source.²⁰

The protocol required reporting in the aggregate only, and the programme’s own public reporting is aggregate.¹¹

Discovery, and the executors

The condition of payment interacted with pending civil litigation. The Daily Beast reported on August 30, 2020 that victims in other lawsuits, including a case brought by Annie Farmer, had been scheduled to depose Indyke, “but their participation in a victims’ compensation fund put their cases on hold”.²¹ The article quotes an unnamed source it describes as familiar with the victims’ litigation: “One of the ironies is that as Epstein’s executor, by agreeing to set up this claims process, he may succeed in insulating himself from discovery.”²¹ The article records that Indyke and his criminal defence lawyer “did not return messages left by The Daily Beast”.²¹ The same source’s further characterisation of Indyke’s role and knowledge is not reproduced here, since it is not about the programme; it is covered, together with his recorded responses on other occasions, at Darren Indyke.

The protocol did not require a claimant to pause or drop a case in order to take part; it required dismissal with prejudice only from a claimant who accepted an offer, and said in terms that litigation could continue alongside a claim.⁸¹⁸ The two accounts describe different things: what the instrument required, and what the reporting says happened to particular depositions.

Litigation over the programme’s confidentiality

The programme’s confidentiality was tested in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. In a letter of October 28, 2020 responding to the defence’s discovery requests, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York told defence counsel that, as to any submissions to the Program made by the Minor Victims or any other witness alleging misconduct by the defendant, “the Government plays no role in administering that program” and “is not in possession of any submissions to this program”.²² On April 27, 2021, Judge Alison J. Nathan declined to authorise Request 12 of a proposed Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena to the law firm Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, which sought “any” submission the firm had made to the Program: the request failed the relevance prong of United States v. Nixon and lacked specificity, and “[t]he ‘mere hope’ that the documents may contain some exculpatory evidence is insufficient to justify enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena”.²³ The order left the defendant free to renew the request if she identified specific individuals whose submissions she sought and the relevance of the material.²³

A later subpoena went to the administrator herself. The Government moved to quash it on November 18, 2021, and counsel for one of the complainants moved to quash it the day after.²⁴²⁵ The administrator moved to quash it on her own account; the court denied her motion on November 22, 2021 and ordered production to the court by noon on November 24.²⁶ Her counsel replied on November 23 that she intended to comply, that the volume of potentially responsive material was “approximately 6,000 to 7,000 pages”, and that she would produce first “claim forms and any narratives signed by the four individuals identified in the subpoena, payment records, and releases executed by the four individuals”.²⁶

An earlier and different proposal, 2011

The release also contains a proposal for a victims’ foundation made eight years earlier, in a different context and on different terms. In an email of August 3, 2011, passed to Epstein through his assistant, the attorney Brad Edwards set out what a settlement of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case would have to look like: it “would only include the formation, participation in, and funding of a crime victims-type Foundation”. A following sentence adds that there would be “no payment to anyone other than the Foundation”.²⁷ What that proposal ruled out, payment to individual claimants, is what the 2020 programme did. The 2011 settlement discussions are covered at Epstein civil litigation strategy and Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation).

Related

• Victims in the Epstein record
• Jeffrey Epstein estate
• Darren Indyke
• Richard Kahn
• Victim settlements
• Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation)
• Epstein investigations overview

Footnotes

1. Independent Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, Protocol, May 29, 2020, filed as Exhibit 1 to a Rule 17(c) subpoena in United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), EFTA00010045, p. 8 (protocol folio 1). This copy redacts the co-designers’ and the administrator’s names throughout, which the page takes from the press release instead; page numbers below are the pages of this run, and the protocol’s own footer folio is seven less. This is the more heavily redacted of two protocol copies in the release; the other, EFTA00078667, redacts only the administrator’s name and leaves the two other designers’ and an outside expert’s names in the clear. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

2. Co-executors’ request for an immediate hearing or conference regarding the expedited motion for establishment of a voluntary claims resolution program, In the Matter of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Probate No. ST-19-PB-80 (Super. Ct. V.I.), EFTA00100674, p. 2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

3. Press release, “Renowned Claims Resolution Experts Announce Commencement of the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program”, embargoed to June 25, 2020, EFTA00032569, p. 1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

4. Same FAQ, EFTA02839309, p. 16 (Other Program Information, question 1). ↩ ↩²

5. Letter of the administrator of the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, “Important Update Regarding the Epstein VCP”, February 4, 2021, filed as Exhibit 1 to Document 94-1 in Doe v. Indyke, No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF (S.D.N.Y.), EFTA02752407, p. 2. Signed by the administrator over a printed signature block. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

6. Press release, “Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program to Resume Issuance of Compensation Offers”, March 29, 2021, filed as Exhibit C in Probate No. ST-19-PB-80, EFTA02821574, p. 15. No other page of this run is cited here. ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. Independent Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, “Frequently Asked Questions”, June 25, 2020, filed as Exhibit E to Document 734-5 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), EFTA02839309, p. 2. Page numbers for this document are the pages of the run as a reader opens it, which match the ECF stamp; the document’s own footer folio runs one behind. ↩

8. Same protocol, EFTA00010045, p. 10 (protocol folio 3) (Eligibility Requirements). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

9. Same protocol, EFTA00010045, p. 14 (protocol folio 7) (Release; Payments). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

10. Press release, “Independent Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program Announces Conclusion of Claims Process”, August 9, 2021, EFTA00078666, p. 1. The same release is also filed, with an ECF stamp, as Exhibit F to Document 734-6 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), EFTA02839326; that stamped copy is the one the government’s brief below cites. This copy redacts the administrator’s full name and the press contact’s e-mail address; the Maxwell-docket copy redacts only her surname and does not redact the e-mail. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

11. Same protocol, EFTA00010045, pp. 15–16 (protocol folios 8–9) (Confidentiality/Privacy; Reporting). Section D, Confidentiality/Privacy, opens on protocol folio 8 (run p. 15); the files-not-open-to-inspection sentence begins there and its tail is on protocol folio 9 (run p. 16). The FAQ’s own version of this sentence, at EFTA02839309 p. 10, omits “or the Claimant or her representatives”; this page follows the protocol, which is the instrument. ↩ ↩² ↩³

12. Email, subject “Epstein Forfeiture Options”, sent August 14, 2019 at 2:14 p.m. from an account tagged “(USANYS)”, EFTA01681955, p. 1. The sender and the addressees are redacted on the page. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

13. Same email, EFTA01681955, p. 2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

14. Same request, EFTA00100674, p. 3. ↩

15. Same protocol, EFTA00010045, p. 12 (protocol folio 5) (Factors Considered in Evaluating Claims). ↩

16. Same protocol, EFTA00010045, p. 13 (protocol folio 6). ↩ ↩²

17. Same FAQ, EFTA02839309, p. 10. ↩

18. Same protocol, EFTA00010045, p. 11 (protocol folio 4) (Claims Submission Process). ↩ ↩²

19. Letter of Robert Glassman to Hon. John G. Koeltl, February 4, 2021, Doe v. Indyke, No. 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF (S.D.N.Y.), Document 94, EFTA02752409, pp. 1-2. Nothing about the plaintiff is taken from this document beyond the fact of the filing. ↩

20. Letter brief of the United States, November 19, 2021, Document 734 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), EFTA02839341, p. 7 (brief page seven), footnotes 36 and 37. ↩

21. Kate Briquelet, “Jeffrey Epstein’s Right-Hand Mystery Men: The Lawyer and the Accountant”, The Daily Beast, August 30, 2020, reproduced in the release at EFTA01654937, pp. 6-7. Nothing else in this article is cited here. ↩ ↩² ↩³

22. Letter of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to counsel for the defendant, October 28, 2020, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), EFTA00030569, p. 6; case caption at p. 1. ↩

23. United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 20-CR-330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), Order of April 27, 2021 [Document 252], EFTA00020298, p. 1 (naming Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP), pp. 6–7 (the ruling on Request 12). ↩ ↩²

24. Letter motion of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to quash the defendant’s Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena to the administrator of the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, November 18, 2021, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), EFTA00010118, p. 1 and footnote 1. ↩

25. Transmittal of a letter motion to quash the defendant’s Rule 17 subpoena to the administrator of the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, filed by counsel for one of the complainants, November 19, 2021, EFTA00023357, p. 1. ↩

26. Letter of Patrick J. Smith, Smith Villazor LLP, for the administrator of the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, November 23, 2021, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330, EFTA00087562, p. 1. ↩ ↩²

27. Email of Brad Edwards, August 3, 2011, forwarded within an exchange of August 4, 2011, EFTA01856703, pp. 1-3. Nothing else on those pages is reproduced here. ↩