EmpireStateBuildingInvestors .com     Toll Free 866-574-1712
  • Home
  • Page List
  • SEC-Malkin Letter
  • Contact
  • ESB Ownership
    • Questions about sales process and 50% split with sublessee. 4
    • Empire State Building and Sublessee 1961-2012: Changing views
    • $2.5 Billion Empire State Building Appraisal 6
    • Sublease >
      • "The supervisor has represented that historically, agreements have been entered into to share capital expenditure and financing costs"
      • Sublessee owners 7
      • Sublessee or Lessee 8
      • Is sublessee in a joint venture with Empire State Building? 9 empire state building ipo prospectus
      • Sublessee declines opportunity to become co-owner 10
      • Owner's relationship with sublessee is contractual 12
    • There is one owner of Empire State Building 11
    • Title to all of the improvements shall be in the Lessor 13
  • News
  • Lawsuits against Malkin Holdings L.L.C. since 3/1/12
    • 3/1/2012 First Class Action Lawsuit
    • 3/7/12 Second Class Action Suit
    • 3/12/12 Third Class Action Suit
  • SEC Rules
    • SEC rules
    • SEC rules 2
  • 3/16/12 SEC filing Empire State Building Associates
  • 4/4/12 SEC Filing EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
  • May 31 2012 Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. SEC Filing
  • How much is your ownership worth?
  • WSJ: High-Stakes Feud over Empire State Building
  • FORM OF PARTICIPATING AGREEMENT OF EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
  • No independent representative was retained to negotiate on behalf of the participants
  • S-4 Empire State Equity Trust February 13, 2012 14
  • definitions
  • continued from home page 15
  • Empire State Owners Go Ape Over IPO Tax Issues: Wall Street Journal April 8 2012
  • January 9, 2012 Answer to SEC inquiry
  • REITs Spring an Unnerving Surprise
  • Average Rent paid according to Malkin Holdings L.L.C.
  • Duties of Supervisor of Associates
  • Reuters: Empire State Building IPO change may help pay tax
  • Wall Street Journal: Tax Terms Amended in Empire State Building IPO
  • How to Ruin a Safe Bet; Did Rockefeller Center Financiers Reach Too Far?
  • May 31 2012 Helmsley Estate Driving Empire State Building IPO, Malkins Say
  • SEC May 11, 2012 :" "There are material risks and conflicts of interest associated with the consolidation."
  • Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Lockup Agreement
  • Sublease or Lease
  • Shared Debt Obligation
  • Eliminating Two-Tier Ownership
  • Sublease renewals
  • June 9, 2008 Consent for Loan for Improvement Program
  • December 27, 1961 Lease Empire State Building Prudential Insurance Company and Empire State Building Associates
  • Lease renewals
  • June 8 2008 Loan for Improvements
  • June 9, 2008 Empire State Building Improvements Budget
  • $10 million REIT fees paid out 2011 Empire State Building IPO
  • 2011 Empire State Building Company LLC financials
  • SEC filing July 2, 2012 Empire State Building Associates L.L.C
  • ESBA number of participants
  • On August 6, 2012, Malkin Holdings L.L.C., the supervisor of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. (the “Registrant”), provided the following to persons calling participants in the Registrant, to be used as a script for such calls:
  • SEC August 6, 2012 Empire State Realty Trust, Inc
  • Poll of ESBA participants
  • August 9, 2012 Legal Proceedings Empire State Building Associates 10Q
  • Columbia University Sublesse interest
  • August 9, 2012 SEC filing of New Risk Factor of More Lawsuits against Management
  • 2012: Observatory increased admission prices over 15%
  • Wells Notice
  • SEC Filing 8/24/12 "legally distinct from a joint venture"‏ malkin empire state sec filings
  • Empire State Realty Trust Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Empire State Building IPO
  • Top ten reasons to Vote NO to sale of Empire State Building to REIT
  • Empire State Building Income
  • Page 1
  • Economic Joint Venture
  • 50/50 split
  • Empire State Building privately owned by Empire State Building Company?
  • S-4
  • 11/5/12 Settlement reached in Empire State Realty Trust suit
  • S-4 Red-lined version 11/2/12
  • Class Action Suit
  • Empire State Building Company Partnership Agreement
  • January 28, 2013 $800 Class Action Lawsuit Filed
  • REIT fees to ESBA investors
  • 1971 Sublessee Operating Agreement and Amendments
  • 1971 Empire State Building Company Participation Agreement
  • SEC 2/5/13 1971 Sublessee Empire State Building Company Participation Agreement
  • Top Ten Vote No
  • Sublease and improvements
  • Ex-Wien partner: Vote No to REIT
  • NYC's Towering TV Choice: 1 WTC Or Empire
  • Observatory
  • 1961 Empire State Building Associates Prospectus
  • A Yen for Yield Could Rock U.S. REIT
  • Law360
  • REfin Blog
  • Crain's New York: Bidders up ante at Empire State Bldg.
  • Crains New York: Another bidder moves to upset Empire St. Bldg. plan.
  • ESBA purchase of fee title 2001-2
  • Damage and Destruction:
  • ESBA land building cost percentages
  • Revman headed for Empire State Building
  • SL Green says private market will value ESB higher
  • Private market values exceed public market values
  • Thor makes second offer for Empire State Building
  • Empire State Building Investors Again Sue Owners Over IPO
  • Empire State Building Topless Model Lawsuit
  • Empire State Building $500 Million Lawsuit against Malkin Holdings
  • Investors Launch $600M Suit Over Empire State Building Deal
  • Law360: Report Details Malkin's Rebuff Of Empire State Bldg. Bids‏
  • Empire State Building Investor Appeals $55M Settlement
  • Empire State Building Investors Rip Owners Over Discovery
  • SEC Freedom of Information Act Exemptions
  • ESRT SEC filings comments and Malkin Holdings uploaded answers
  • ESRT SEC Indexed files
  • FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013 (October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013)
  • Freedom of Information Appeal (FOIA) Resources
  • “MALKIN FAMILY CONTRIBUTORS” to REIT
  • FOIA Vaughn Index
  • sec-glomar-response-to-foia-request-for-copies-of-interviews-with-empire-state-building-investors
  • “[WE] CAN NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF RECORDS RESPONSIVE TO YOUR REQUEST”1 : REFORMING THE GLOMAR RESPONSE UNDER FOIA
  • SEC issues Glomar Response for ESRT-first since 2010
  • Glomar Response-Office of Government Information Services
  • Empire State Building $600 Million lawsuit against Peter Malkin and Tony Malkin
  • SEC FOIA Lawsuit for Empire State Building REIT records
  • Case 1:14-cv-01140 EDELMAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Complaint
  • AGREEMENT BETWEEN MALKIN HOLDINGS LLC AND HELMSLEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
  • PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS and FORM OF PARTICIPATING AGREEMENT For Lincoln and Fish Buildings
  • Helmsley Management to self manage
  • SEC Division of Corporation Finance Staff Legal Bulletin No. 1 (with Addendum) "Confidential Treatment Requests"
  • Untitled
  • EDELMAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION-Case Assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (md, )
  • About 20% of the people who were warned over a two-year period that they might be sued by U.S. regulators for allegedly violating securities law ended up not facing charges
  • justice.gov guide-freedom-information-act
  • September 19, 2013
  • September 5, 2013
  • August 12, 2013
  • December 21, 2012
  • December 17, 2012
  • October 19, 2012
  • October 10, 2012
  • October 5, 2012
  • September 24, 2012
  • September 13, 2012 file 1
  • September 13, 2012 file 2
  • September 10, 2012 file 1
  • September 10, 2012 file 2
  • September 5, 2012
  • August 27, 2012
  • May 8 , 2012
  • July 3, 2012
  • The OGIS Library Vaughn Index
  • FOIA Facts: Inside the Process of Preparing a Vaughn Index
  • Sample Vaughn Indexes
  • ESRT Equity Interests
  • SEC Vaughn Index Lawsuits
  • Gavin vs. SEC
  • GAVIN v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMM., Civil No. 04-4522 (PAM/JSM). , at 4 (D. Minn. Oct. 13, 2006)
  • Empire State Realty Trust Ownership
  • Improvements ownership
  • Therefore, each of Associates and Lessee will ultimately bear one-half of the cost of the improvement program
  • CF Memo
  • SEC Is Steering More Trials to Judges It Appoints
  • 10/20/14 Activity in Case 1:14-cv-01140-RMC EDELMAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Order
  • NYC Rooftop RF Options Widen
  • H.R.1211 - FOIA Act
  • Exemption 5
  • Exemption 6
  • 11/10/14 ESRT Update on Lawsuits
  • SEC: How Investigations Work
  • SEC FOIA Exclusions
  • SEC FOIA Requests November 2014
  • FOIA Glomar response conversion to The (c)(1) Exclusion
  • Law360: Empire State Building Investors Launch Another Suit Over IPO
  • 2/17/15: PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • ESB SEC FOIA Requests Updated List
  • ESB SEC FOIA Requests Updated List March 2015
  • 04/17/15 RICHARD EDELMAN, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:14-CV-1140 (RDM) ) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ) COMMISSION, ) Defendant.
  • Malkin attorneys FOIA requests for ESB investigation files rebuffed by SEC
  • ESRT SEC Enforcement Investigation File
  • FOIA Lawsuit San Diego
  • Malkin Holdings lawyers Dewey Pegno SEC FOIA requests Empire State Building
  • Federal Court to Rule on release of SEC ESRT-Malkin Holdings Investigation Files
  • Peter Malkin Tony Malkin Lose Empire State Building Case Ruling
  • Malkin Holdings, Peter Malkin and Tony Malkin lose counterclaim ruling in Empire State Building Arbitration case.
  • Federal Court to rule on release of SEC ESRT Malkin Holdings ​Empire State Building investigation files.
  • SEC FOIA Lawsuit Empire State Realty Trust Malkin Holdings Consumer Complaints
  • Empire State Realty Trust Income Tax Treatment according to Malkin Holdings LLC
  • February 20, 2013 Re: In re Empire State Realty Trust, MNY-08894
  • SEC 662
  • SEC lawyers Empire State Building sale notes from calls and meetings with Malkin Holdings managers ordered released by Federal Judge
  • Malkin answer to SEC about unauthorized renewal of Empire State Building Master Lease
  • "SEC Ordered To Turn Over Empire State REIT Docs Index"
  • Empire State Building Department of Justice FOIA ruling Malkin Holdings
http://www.llrx.com/columns/foia2.htm


FOIA Facts: Inside the Process of Preparing a Vaughn IndexBy Scott A. Hodes, Published on September 29, 2003Printer-Friendly Version


Anyone who has ever been involved in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation is aware of the strange document that determines the outcome of many FOIA cases. This document, known as a Vaughn Index, is what agencies prepare to justify any FOIA withholdings they have made.

When the FOIA was created, there was no mechanism in the Act for the government to justify its withholdings or for plaintiffs to have a description of what the information being withheld from them was. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came up with an answer in Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The DC Circuit required agencies to prepare an itemized index, correlating each withholding with a specific FOIA exemption and a justification for that justification. Vaughn at 827. The required justification became standard in almost all FOIA cases.

The only alternative to a Vaughn Index is for agencies to submit their withheld material to the court in camera, and then let the court decide if the agencies processing was proper. This alternative, however, has many drawbacks. Plaintiffs receive no opportunity to challenge the redactions because they don’t know the agencies rationale for withholding them. Defendant agencies lose control over their documents, and in the case of an overzealous judge, may lose appellate rights. Finally, courts would be overburdened if they had to review all the raw documents withheld in the hundreds of FOIA cases brought each year.

A plaintiff’s challenge of the government’s use of an exemption in a FOIA case triggers the need for the government to produce a Vaughn. A number of factors determine exactly how the finished Vaughn will look. The Vaughn Index can take many forms such as a straight affidavit, a narrative document, an affidavit with a chart or index detailing the withholdings attached, or a hybrid of any of these examples. All Vaughns serve the same purpose; give a meaningful justification for any withheld materials.

The bottom line for any Vaughn Declaration is that that it must allow a court to decide if the agency’s FOIA withholdings were proper. The types and size of the withholdings will often dictate the format the declaration takes. For instance, if only a few pieces of information are withheld, a simple affidavit justifying them will most likely be more than adequate. However, a case involving hundreds, or even thousands of documents, and probably thousands of redactions will require more than a small affidavit. As the amount of work involved in a large Vaughn is a huge strain on an agency’s legal and FOIA resources, the agency will seek to provide a justification for only a sample of the withheld material. Additionally, the agency may seek to provide a coded Vaughn. A coded Vaughn involves giving each redaction a specific code and then providing a justification for each code, rather than specifically pointing out where each redaction is on a certain page. The coded documents are then attached to a declaration, which is a general affidavit describing and justifying the redaction categories. A coded Vaughn can be done with a sample of the withheld material to provide a manageable size to the Vaughn. The bottom line is that agencies don’t like preparing Vaughns and will do whatever it takes to make the final product as small and simple as possible.

Regardless of the format of the overall declaration, the most important thing in preparing a Vaughn is to adequately and meaningfully describe and justify the withheld documents. The person who will be the declarant must ensure that the redactions are properly described. Many agency declarants utilize a staff, often paralegals, to assist in the preparation of the declaration. A good trick for declarants is to read a draft declaration before reviewing the underlying withheld material. This enables agency personnel to see the case from the perspective of the plaintiff and the court. If the declarant can make no sense of something in a declaration, then the agency will know that there is a problem and a target for attack by the plaintiff. After review of the index, the declarant must then review the withheld material.

A Vaughn Index is a factual document. Legal arguments and case sites should rarely, if ever, be used. The Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) will cite the applicable law in a dispositive motion used to support the Vaughn. Whenever an AUSA filed one of my Vaughns without a supporting brief, trouble was never usually far behind. The Court had nothing in front of it to rule on, and the bare declaration, no matter how well prepared it was, was usually just used as a punching bag by plaintiffs.

The use of computers has aided the Vaughn process by allowing agencies to use previous indices as templates. However, this can cause problems in that agencies that fail to carefully proofread their Vaughn products may add arguments and justifications not applicable to the case at hand. Furthermore, the use of previous indices may not provide justifications with enough specificity to justify the redactions in the case before the court.
Another important step in the preparation of the Vaughn Index is that someone with both knowledge of FOIA case law and release authority should examine the underlying documents. In many cases, FOIA processors accidentally withhold information that is either intended for release or is clearly releasable. This material should be released before the filing of the Vaughn. Additionally, information that may be protectible by the agency, but for some reason the agency doesn’t want to litigate over or push the envelope on should also be released before the Vaughn is prepared and filed.

It can’t be stated too many times that preparing an adequate Vaughn document is a time consuming and labor intensive task. Agency FOIA department are nearly always under funded and inadequately staffed. The expertise of those who can prepare adequate Vaughn Indices is rarely appreciated. When Vaughn declarations are well done, the product can be quite large. This in turn creates a problem for the courts, which have large caseloads, and don’t have the time to quickly review the large Vaughn Indices. Thus Vaughn’s and their underlying dispositive motions may sit on a court’s docket for upwards of a year before being ruled on. However, it doesn’t appear that any changes to FOIA litigation appear on the horizon. Thus, the Vaughn Index will be a staple of FOIA litigation for the foreseeable future.

Plaintiffs and their counsel, who are opposing a Vaughn Index for the first time, should make sure they can follow an agency’s logic and rationales. If the plaintiff is having difficulty with the agency’s Vaughn, they should contact counsel with FOIA expertise to help them review the document and assist them in preparing a meaningful reply to the government’s document