How did the court‑appointed administrator determine eligibility and award amounts in the JPMorgan $290M Epstein settlement?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A court‑appointed claims administrator — identified in filings as Simone K. Lelchuk — was tasked with deciding who qualified for payments from JPMorgan’s $290 million settlement with Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and how much each eligible claimant would receive; the administrator’s authority rested on a court‑approved class definition, an uncapped fund, and discretion to weigh overlap with other bank settlements, but the public record in the cited reporting does not detail a precise formula (such as a points matrix) used to calculate individual awards [1] [2] [3].
1. How eligibility was defined and delegated to the administrator
Judge Jed Rakoff certified the class and set the eligibility window tied to JPMorgan’s relationship with Epstein: the class was defined as “all women who were sexually abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein during the time when JP Morgan maintained [accounts] for Epstein and/or Epstein-related entities,” with the relevant JPMorgan client period identified as January 1, 1998 through August 19, 2013 (and filings also referenced the period through Epstein’s death for related claims), and the parties agreed that a court‑appointed administrator would process claims within that framework [4] [5] [1].
2. No floor, no cap: what the settlement left to the administrator
Unlike some prior bank settlements, JPMorgan’s $290 million deal explicitly set no minimum guaranteed payment per claimant and no per‑claim cap, leaving the distribution amounts to the administrator’s discretion; that absence of a guaranteed minimum was noted by Judge Rakoff at preliminary approval hearings and highlighted as giving the administrator “significant power” over the fund [5] [1] [6].
3. Duties spelled out in filings and judicial oversight
Court filings and reporting show the administrator’s duties included adjudicating who met the class definition, determining award amounts, and coordinating with awards from the Deutsche Bank settlement so overlapping recoveries would be considered; the administrator — whose identity the parties proposed in court papers — also agreed to provide the judge with updates every three months about claim decisions, creating a formal oversight channel even as substantive allocation discretion remained with the administrator [3] [1] [2].
4. Factors the administrator was instructed to consider
The publicly reported plan required the administrator to consider timing — whether the abuse occurred while JPMorgan banked Epstein — and to take into account any award a claimant might have received from the separate Deutsche Bank fund, meaning awards could be reduced or coordinated to avoid duplicative recovery for the same period; beyond timing and prior recoveries, the press accounts do not disclose a detailed, published scoring system or weightings for severity, corroboration, or other typical claims‑assessment factors [1] [3] [6].
5. Criticisms and competing perspectives on concentrating discretion
Critics flagged that giving a single administrator broad discretion without minimum payments risks uneven or opaque outcomes, a point Judge Rakoff raised during hearings when he questioned why the JPMorgan deal lacked the $75,000 floor that applied in the Deutsche Bank settlement; proponents countered that an administrator with flexibility is necessary when more than 200 potential claimants and overlapping settlements make rigid guarantees impractical [5] [7] [8].
6. What the sources do not show — limits of public reporting
The reporting assembled here documents the administrator’s appointment, the class definition, the absence of minimums/caps, and judicial reporting requirements, but it does not publish the actual claims protocol, scoring rubric, sample award tiers, or internal guidelines Simone Lelchuk used when deciding individual payouts; therefore, descriptions of any specific formula, point system, or individualized factors beyond timing and coordination with Deutsche Bank awards cannot be asserted from these sources [1] [3] [2].
7. Bottom line: delegated discretion with court check, but limited transparency
In sum, the court‑appointed administrator determined eligibility by applying the judge‑approved class definition tied to JPMorgan’s client period and decided award sizes with broad discretion because the settlement set no per‑claim minimum or cap, while being required to factor in any Deutsche Bank recovery and to report decisions to the court quarterly — a structure that balanced judicial oversight with substantial administrative latitude but left important methodological details out of the public record [4] [1] [2].