Details of a settlement between Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein have been released — but they’re confusing.
Prince Andrew’s lawyers have tried again to block a civil lawsuit by Virginia Giuffre, who says he sexually assaulted her three times when she was 17. Details of a legal settlement in which she took $500,000 from Jeffrey Epstein on the basis that she does not bring further legal action have been released.
The 2009 deal is expected to feature among the prince’s arguments when his legal team contends on January 4 that Giuffre’s suit should be dismissed.
Unfortunately for everyone watching, the details of the settlement — and their implications — are quite confusing.
Giuffre, referred to in the settlement by her maiden name, Roberts, agreed in 2009 to “remise, release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge the said second parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant … from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal, cause and causes of action.”
Prince Andrew is not named in the release. But this is not the critical point.
In an October 2021 court filing, Prince Andrew’s attorneys said: “Giuffre settled her sex-trafficking and sexual-abuse claims against Epstein in 2009. In doing so, she provided Epstein with a general release of all claims against him and numerous other individuals and entities.”
They added: “Because Prince Andrew is a senior member of the British royal family, he falls into one of the expressly identified categories of persons, ie, royalty, released from liability under the release agreement, along with politicians, academicians, businessmen and others allegedly associated with Epstein.”
“As a third-party beneficiary of the release agreement, Prince Andrew is entitled to enforce the general release contained therein.”
As this British lawyer notes, the prince’s lawyers have highlighted a point of contract law, as implied by the term “third-party beneficiary.”
However, this legal observer argues that the real issue is whether the prince is jointly liable on the same claim from which the settlement releases Epstein and any joint tortfeasors (people committing the same wrong). This is a point of tort law.
According to this reasoning, if the prince’s tort (legal wrong) against Giuffre is separate from Epstein’s, then Epstein performing his obligation per the 2009 settlement (ie: paying Giuffre $500,000) does not release the Prince from his obligations.
On January 3, a representative for Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies released a statement saying “the release is irrelevant to Ms. Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew.”
“He did not even know about it… He could not have been a ‘potential defendant’ in the settled case against Jeffrey Epstein both because he was not subject to jurisdiction in Florida and because the Florida case involved federal claims to which he was not a part.”
Oral arguments commence January 4.
Meanwhile, the judge in a separate case against Ghislaine Maxwell, who was last week convicted of five out of six federal sex abuse charges, has given her defense attorneys and the prosecutors until Jan. 10 to submit sentencing proposals and recommendations.
