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

The FOIA Project
Freeing information through public accountability
​http://foiaproject.org/lawsuits-show-agency/?locate=Go&deforgid=SEC

Washington D.C. Federal Judge orders SEC to turn over SEC
                     lawyers notes 
taken during meetings and phone calls with Malkin
                     Holdings 
managers, their lawyers, and investors during sale of Empire State Building to ESRT REIT.
​




​
​Case TitleEDELMAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2014cv01140
Date Filed2014-07-03
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge Randolph D. Moss
PlaintiffRICHARD EDELMAN
Case DescriptionRichard Edelman, who operates a website providing information to investors in the Empire State Building, submitted six FOIA requests to the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning investments related to the Empire State Building. After the agency failed to respond to any of his requests within the statutory time limit, Edelman appealed the denial of his requests. In response to two of his appeals, the agency issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying the existence of records, under Exemption 7(A) (ongoing investigation). Edelman finally filed suit.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Exemption 7(A) - Categorical exemption


DefendantSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Opinion/Order [24]
FOIA Project Annotation: In a decision that has far-reaching effects on what records qualify as agency records, Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that notes taken by SEC attorneys during meetings and phone conversations are not categorically exempt from FOIA because they are personal records rather than agency records. While the distinction between agency and personal records comes up in litigation only occasionally, as a matter of interpretation agencies generally assume that notes taken by an employee to memorialize an exchange are personal to that employee and are not agency records unless specifically relied upon by the agency. Instead of a presumption that the notes were personal, Moss concluded the notes were taken by the attorneys as part of their jobs and reflected work done for the agency, not for their personal convenience. Moss noted that "what little evidence the SEC has submitted shows that the notes 'facilitated the day-to-day operations of the' SEC's review of the transaction, whether or not they were incorporated into the official file that was created to accompany that review. It is thus incorrect to assert that the notes were created for the 'personal convenience' of the attorneys; it is more accurate to say that they were created for the attorneys' 'professional convenience.' Such records are not categorically shielded from FOIA's reach, whether or not they were distributed within the agency. To make distribution the centerpiece of the 'agency records' analysis cannot be squared with the purposes of FOIA." The case involved multiple requests made by Richard Edelman for records concerning the SEC's decision to approve the formation of the Empire State Realty Trust, which converted ownership of the Empire State Building into a real estate investment trust. Edelman was a former investor in the Empire State Building and maintained a website that provides information to investors and the public about the conversion. Edelman eventually filed suit over six requests he had made for records pertaining to the transaction. Edelman had appealed the agency's failure to respond for several of the requests. The agency acknowledged that it had failed to respond within the statutory time limits and remanded most of his requests, all of which had been processed by the time Moss decided the case. The status of the attorneys' notes was part of the agency's response to Edelman's request for records concerning the agency's reviews of consumer complaints about the transaction. The agency claimed that Edelman had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for a request for confidential records submitted by the Empire State Realty Trust. Edelman had appealed the agency's failure to respond on time and the agency remanded the case for processing. Without reference to the remand, two weeks later the agency responded to the request, telling Edelman that it had found no records and that he had the right to appeal that decision. The next day, Edelman received a letter acknowledging the remand on appeal and indicating the agency would begin processing the remand. A week after that, Edelman received another letter from the agency explaining in more detail the basis for its no records claim and, again, indicating he had the right to appeal that decision. Edelman did not appeal. The agency argued Moss did not have jurisdiction over the request because Edelman had failed to appeal before filing suit. Moss found that Oglesby v. Dept of Army applied in these circumstances. Moss explained that "if 'an administrative appeal is mandatory if the agency cures its failure to respond within the statutory period by responding to the FOIA request before suit is filed,' it stands to reason that the appeal is mandatory even if the agency's failure to respond initially is 'cured' only after a remand. . .Edelman cannot now rely on the SEC's initial failure to timely respond to the request to excuse his failure to file an appeal from the Commission's subsequent decision." Turning to the records status of the attorneys' notes, Moss indicated that "surprisingly, it is an open question within this circuit whether notes taken by individual agency employees in the course of performing their official duties are 'agency records' subject to FOIA. The district judges who have considered the question have held, by and large, that they are not. . .[H]owever, the Court disagrees and concludes that FOIA and the relevant caselaw do not support the categorical exclusion of notes taken and used solely by individual agency employees from the statute's reach." The Supreme Court first interpreted the statutory meaning of agency records in two cases�"Kissinger v. Reporters Committee, 445 U.S. 136 (1980), and Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980)�"ruling that to be subject to FOIA a record must be in the custody and possession of the agency. The Court tweaked that definition in Dept of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (1989), in which the Court ruled that records obtained and controlled by an agency were agency records. Moss found that two D.C. Circuit decisions�"Bureau of National Affairs v. Dept of Justice, 742 F.2d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1984), and Consumer Federation of America v. Dept of Agriculture, 455 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 2006), both of which involved appointment calendars�"were the most relevant case law to the circumstances here. He pointed out, however, that both cases involved a mix of personal and agency information. He explained that "by contrast, the notes in this case contain no personal content whatsoever, or at least the SEC has not suggested that they do." He added that "the SEC merely argues that the notes are not agency records because, although the attorneys created them in furtherance of their official duties, they did so individually, not at the agency's behest." Based on those two cases, Moss examined whether the SEC had control and use of the notes. He observed that "the SEC argues that it did not control the notes because the employees were not required to keep them. . .and they were not incorporated into the SEC's files. But the Commission's assertions rest on misunderstanding the law and facts. As a matter of law, it is not at all clear whether the Federal Records Act, or the SEC's regulations would have obligated the attorneys to maintain the notes that were the topic of Edelman's two requests." Moss pointed out that "it is difficult to imagine that the SEC does not at least require that its staff maintain some record of witness interviews." The agency also argued the notes were not integrated into the agency's files. Moss indicated that "it is hard to understand why it would matter, for purposes of FOIA, whether a document is kept on an attorney's agency computer or in her agency desk�"at least to the extent the document concerns agency business rather than personal matters. Indeed, it is safe to assume that some of the most consequential records in the government have at times resided in individual offices rather than in agencies' centralized filing systems. Treating those records as beyond FOIA's reach cannot be squared with the statutory goal of 'opening agency action to the light of public scrutiny.'" Moss recognized that his ruling might impact agency employees' willingness to take notes at all. But he indicated that "many of the notes that may be subject to the Court's interpretation will likely be exempt from disclosure under one of FOIA's statutory exemptions." Stressing that his ruling was limited, Moss observed that "all the Court concludes at this juncture is that the notes in this case are not categorically exempt from FOIA simply because they were maintained and used exclusively by their authors." 
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust, Agency Record - Control