Talk:Leon Black

The Epstein Connection
Mentions of the case brought against him Nov 2022 keep being reverted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTID (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Following the recent New York Times report I think it is time to add something about his financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein. This is far from a fringe conspiracy theory, it has been reported on by the New York Times, Bloomberg, WSJ, Vanity Fair, Axios etc. In-fact Black himself has addressed the connection.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/business/dealbook/black-epstein-relationship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/business/leon-black-jeffrey-epstein.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-23/apollo-chairman-leon-black-to-be-subpoenaed-in-epstein-case-nyt https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/business/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black-apollo.html https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/what-was-leon-black-doing-with-trump-in-russia https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-31/jeffrey-epstein-had-a-door-into-apollo-his-deep-ties-with-black https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-01/apollo-s-black-clarifies-relationship-with-epstein-to-investors https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2019/07/29/private-equity-billionaire-leon-black-sends-letter-to-employees-addressing-jeffrey-epstein-ties/#614a2ead5a55 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apollo-globals-earnings-rise-on-higher-revenue-11564574437 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-26/apollo-scrambles-to-distance-itself-from-black-s-ties-to-epstein https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/business/jeffrey-epstein-business-wall-street.html https://www.axios.com/leon-black-jeffrey-epstein-apollo-investment-group-a7e4763c-0b95-4b42-a825-6dbbb3f034d1.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-10/leon-black-foundation-disputes-epstein-s-role-after-2008-plea

Deltagammaz (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree. Was very surprised that information from an investigatory article from the NYT and others was judged to be unacceptable to WP. Where are we going here?Ekem (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Was very surprised that information from an investigatory article from the NYT and others was judged to be unacceptable to WP. Where are we going here?Ekem (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither recent version was NPOV reflecting the WEIGHT of this reporting in the context of Black's life. For example, neither stated why Epstein received funds. Please review WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and propose draft article content. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Just saw and reverted the third version for the same reason. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm a little surprised that Wikipedians would take an angle to protect billionaire associates of predatory pedophiles, than to just neutrally reflect what reliable sources say are relevant to the biographical study of a subject person. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:RECENT inclusions are to be avoided, as is WP:SYNTH; WP:BLP and WP:NPOV also have due weight here. Might I suggest:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindenfall (talk • contribs)


 * Very constructive, I have reformatted it to highlight your proposal, also you forgot to sign.  SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding "RECENT", I contend that the July 2019 reports that discussed the relationship Jeffrey Epstein had with the Black Foundation, and which prompted Black to send a special communication to all of his employees (which was then also reported by the news media), is no longer "recent". - AppleBsTime (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And the other linked concerns?  SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What "linked concerns" are you referring to? - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

My Epstein addition since redacted
Now that I see this talk page, I will remove my addition and leave it posted here.

Black maintained a business and personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein following Epstein's 2008 conviction "for soliciting prostitution from a teenage girl", during which time he reportedly wired Epstein at least $50 million for financial management and investment services of an unclear nature, centered on the six year period 2012–2017. After Epstein's conviction, Black was one of the few "elite scions of business and academia" who continued to do business with Epstein. Epstein's qualification to provide financial services of value to Black at the level of the payments reported remains unclear.

I personally don't see much controversy here. The sources are solid, Black himself has confessed many terms of this relationship, and the main angle is that 1) Black was relatively unique in continuing his relationship with Epstein, 2) the nature of the services remains mysterious, as Epstein is not obviously qualified in any way over and above many other providers of such services that Black could easily afford.

There's no way Black escapes this black cloud of insufficient clarity without explaining the nature of Epstein's secret sauce that caused him continue to pursue investment advice from a politically marked man.

Personally, I don't really care about Epstein's elusive biography (there is no straightforward, fully consistent account). All the same, someone of Black's status who continues to do business with a man where the nature of the funds exchanged is pretty much certain to be cast into a bad light is a man either A) prepared to own his choices, or B) dead certain the story won't be exposed to sunlight—and neither of these argue toward suppression because BLP.

I'm also of the opinion to leave the reader free to draw his or her own conclusion. It's pretty easy to guess in the #MeToo era that many will overreact with their brain on Survivor dialtone. (It is not actually a crime in a free society to transact honest business with a corrupt or despicable person,, though you will have to own the suspicion and blowback from your chosen associations.) If that's how many readers wish to comport themselves, it's their choice and not up to Wikipedia editors to arbitrate this on behalf of society. And really, my first reaction to see this being parsed to this degree is to wonder whether some participants in the Wikipedia discussion are not entirely on the up and up. But I'm just passing through, and I'm not motivated to enter this conversation more than recording my two cents worth, as I have done here, so my first reaction must be scored as uninformed and mostly worthless. &mdash; MaxEnt 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree - I wouldn't call your assessment even partially worthless, as I agree resoundingly with it, and I appreciate the time and effort you put in. I might suggest some small changes to your draft (such as changing "for financial management and investment services of an unclear nature" to "purportedly for real estate investment guidance"), but for the most part, I think you've fairly documented what the independent sources say.  I add that I believe the longer Wikipedia goes in suppressing this sort of information, the more our project shares Mr. Black's own black eye. - AppleBsTime (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reporting is that the nature of the relationship is largely unknown. RS do not support any implication that the payments were not arms length business transactions. Moreover, a financier like Black has hundreds of similar financial relationships and payments. Sources have not established any reliable narrative that this one is particularly significant other than the shock value of Epstein's name. The references cited tell us more about Epstein than about Black.  SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be noted also that the reporting reflects the highly unusual and suspicious nature of the $50 million outlay, that it likely represents an outlier from Mr. Black's other "arms length" business transactions with persons not recently convicted of facilitating teenage prostitution for themselves. The narrative, to the contrary of your opinion, sounds quite reliable to me. Maybe I'm just not as good as you are at reading journalism things. - AppleBsTime (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia isn't the news. And it isn't an op-ed where we get to speculate on why Leon Black gave money to Epstein. You need to read WP:NPOV again. Mo Billings (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources that I reviewed were not positioned as "op-ed" content. I'm not going to take the time to re-read all of WP:NPOV, because I already know that it says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."  And I can recognize as easily as anyone that what's happening lately here at this biographical article undermines that requirement. - AppleBsTime (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my comment. I meant that Wikipedia is not a place for your or I to write op-eds, not that the sources were op-eds. Mo Billings (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern, but I didn't misunderstand at all. I've never written an op-ed on Wikipedia, and I don't intend to write one.  I do intend to represent reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the sources.  Right now, that's not being allowed to happen with this article, and I object to that. - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there are now enough sources that discuss Black's financial dealings with Epstein for them to be included in the article, but it needs to be neutrally worded and reflect what the sources say. It would be nice we could discuss it here instead of just reverting any mention of Epstein. Mo Billings (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors who believe this matter is ripe for article inclusion can post proposed article text for discussion. What's clear is that the text can't say $50 Million!!! without all the context and narratives we find in the few RS that have reported on this.  SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's clear, now? What you actually said above is relatively confusing. - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , is there something you specifically object to in the proposed text above, as submitted by and citing Vanity Fair and Forbes? - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

My proposed addition: Black maintained what he called a "limited relationship" relationship with Jeffrey Epstein from 2012-2017. In a letter sent to Apollo's investors obtained by Axios, Black said that Epstein provided him with "estate planning, tax and philanthropic advice" to his "family partnership and other related family entities". The New York Times reported that Black had payed Epstein at least $50 million from 2012-2017, for the aforementioned services. While Black has not confirmed the $50 million sum reported by The Times Black did say that he paid Epstein "millions of dollars annually for his work". In October 2020, Apollo board members announced they had hired external law firm Dechert LLP to conduct an investigation of the relationship at the request of Black. Black has never been personally accused of any inappropriate conduct or wrongdoing and said that he "deeply regrets" his relationship with Epstein.

That seems neutral to me. Any feedback? I am happy to add more RS if thats needed. Does anybody think it is worth adding that this relationship was after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor? It would be nice to get to a consensus. CC:

Deltagammaz (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My quick reaction is that the last 2 sentences are fine. We should not use the "scare quotes" and need not give all the detail. Perhaps the whole thing can be reduced to 3 sentences?  SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , This seems fair to me. GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 18:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Change "payed" to "paid" and it's fine. I have no problem with the use of quotes where they actually are quotes from Black or the sources. Mo Billings (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * How's this?


 * Black maintained what he called a "limited relationship" with Jeffrey Epstein from 2012-2017. Black said that Epstein provided him with "estate planning, tax and philanthropic advice" and was paid "millions of dollars annually" (totaling $50 million according to the NYT) for those services. After public and investor scrutiny Apollo announced (at the request of Black) that an external law firm was conducting an investigation of the relationship.   Black has never been personally accused of any wrongdoing or inappropriate conduct and has said he "deeply regrets" the relationship.


 * I removed some of the arcane details that don't matter (the law firm name, "obtained by axios" for example). Can we do 4 sentences? I think the issue with reducing it any more is it would be hard to explain the situation. When dealing with anything regarding Jeffrey Epstein and other sex offenders it makes sense to err on the side of more info rather than less. IMHO it makes sense to put this under the "personal life" section. Are you saying that anything in my proposed addition is a "scare quote"? If so which one? If specifico is okay with this version I will add it in considering Mo Billings and Greaterponce are also okay with it. Thank You Deltagammaz (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say,  SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy to see this moving in a direction that results in inclusion. What about the banking info related to the payments, that they did "draw scrutiny from Deutsche Bank" (NY Times) and/or were "flagged as unusual by Deutsche Bank" (Financial Times)?  I can live without it, but it otherwise feels like we are contorting ourselves to describe these payments as anything but suspicious, when there is at least some independent thought that they were not typical. - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with AppleBsTime, we are getting closer. I am okay with you adding in your version. Please do. I would change "in a letter to his investors" to "in a letter to Apollo's investors" as Apollo is much bigger than just Black and the investors have invested in Apollo not Black but that's not a big deal. Deltagammaz (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the suspicious element of these payments is more why did Black pay Epstein the first place? Epstein was a convicted pedophile and sex offender at this point. Black does not need advice from some rando who has no formal training in any of the areas he claimed to be paying him for. It might make sense to add in something about the Virgin Island AG subpoena... Deltagammaz (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But we're not looking for the suspicious thing. We are just reporting why RS find it noteworthy. The full story will continue to unfold.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reports (NYT, Bloomberg) indicate that Black had been acquainted with Epstein since "at least the early 1990s", yet the proposed addition only talks about 2012-17. I would think that the reader should be made aware that the relationship covers about 25 years, not five. Ekem (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is that we do not know the nature of the relationship beyond what Black said. But RS do tell us about payments between 2012-17.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the NYT: "Mr. Black knew Mr. Epstein for decades — in 1997 he made Mr. Epstein one of the original trustees of what is today called the Debra and Leon Black Foundation". Ekem (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Trustee role seems appropriate to include.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Black also co invested in a Environmental Service Company with Epstein. 2 of black's sons are on the board. Also worth looking at the Epstein-Black MIT Scandal. Should any of those be added?
 * I don't see those as highly significant to his life, based on current reporting.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The information should be included because of widespread media attention. Note also that it is now routinely mentioned in articles about Black, for example in "Leaders In Both Parties Received Money From Leon Black, Billionaire Caught Up In Epstein Scandal". (Forbes, Oct 26, 2020) The article should also mention Black's donations to both major parties and his loan of $184 million to Jared Kushner's company. TFD (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it now is included. This thread is from over two years ago.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Really?
Believable? So many cites of relevance are missing from article. For me, questionable viability of Wikipedia as source. Wikipietime (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is an impressive list. What I find amazing is that Black was a tax guy himself, but then he paid 50 million annually for tax advice? Just posing that question; without questions there are no answers. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:A5BE:979A:D0A2:B75D (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

well-sourced information about court case removed
Information about a recent court case involving Black has been removed by.

WP:BLP says that "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material ...", however, Black is very much a public figure! So I don't understand the argument that including information about the court case is a BLP violation. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have posted about this here: WP:BLP/Noticeboard
 * Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Lede
The deletion of material from the lede that was responsive to the tag above it is surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157338521

The addition seems to properly address both the October 2020 tag that sits above it, and WP:lede. Perhaps there is an explanation as to why it was viewed, as set forth in the edit summary accompanying the deletion, as not appropriate for a lede. The New York Times for example focuses on the material that was deleted. Drexel, working for Milken, buying the highest priced auction art ever, Epstein, etc all seem highly responsive to the tag and to WP:lede. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:AC75:9DCA:7B3B:1823 (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

-

Update to Ganieva Litigation Section
Hello:

There are some updates that have recently been in the news regarding the Guzel Ganieva litigation against Leon Black. One is that on May 24, 2023, New York State Supreme Court Justice David Cohen dismissed Ms. Ganieva’s case against Mr. Black. I am including links to the media coverage below that supports this update.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/apollo-co-founder-leon-black-wins-dismissal-rape-accusers-lawsuit-2023-05-24/ https://www.ft.com/content/8b946c7e-b893-46d4-acb2-48637dbf21d2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/leon-black-wins-dismissal-of-rape-suit-8bd946da?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

Another development is that on May 4, 2023, a New York appellate court ruled that references to Jeffrey Epstein included in Ms. Ganieva’s complaint against Mr. Black should not have been allowed and, therefore, stricken from the complaint. Therefore, I am wondering if references to Jeffrey Epstein in this section of the article can be removed. I have included media links below to support this update.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-04/leon-black-wins-fight-to-get-epstein-reference-out-of-complaint https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/05/09/appeals-court-grants-leon-blacks-motion-to-remove-allegations-linking-him-to-jeffrey-epstein/

Given I have a conflict of interest relationship with Mr. Black, I am posting this on the talk page as a request in accordance with Wikipedia’s COI guidelines.

Thank you, Marksherr16 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Please propose the revision to the article text that you think would accurately and NPOV reflect these developments.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi User:SPECIFICO: Thank you for responding to my request. Below are my suggestions on how these updates would improve this section of the article and follow Wikipedia guidelines.
 * For the ruling on the dismissal of the lawsuit: On May 24, 2023, New York State Supreme Court Justice David Cohen dismissed Ms. Ganieva’s case against Mr. Black.
 * For the Esptein appellate court ruling, I think the statement below from Bloomberg and New York Law Journal that begins ‘On May 4…’ would be helpful. This would follow this statement: “Ganieva also claimed that Black also introduced her to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and tried to force her to have sex with them.” This is probably a better edit than trying to delete Epstein from the section.
 * On May 4, 2023, a New York appellate court ruled that references to Jeffrey Epstein should not have been included in Ms. Ganieva’s complaint, and, therefore, stricken from the complaint.
 * I look forward to any feedback you may have. Thank you, Marksherr16 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Marksherr16 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal reports on Black's association with Epstein
This was in today's Wall Street Journal. Note that it does NOT say that the Apollo review was independent - in fact, it calls it the "Apollo review". The U.S. Senate Finance Committee review is independent, I will grant you that (it is not paid for by either Apollo or Black), and that review is not yet completed.

"Leon Black

The billionaire co-founder of private-equity giant Apollo Global Management had more than 100 meetings scheduled with Epstein from 2013 to 2017. They typically were scheduled to meet at Epstein’s townhouse and occasionally at Black’s office, the documents show.

The billionaire stepped down as Apollo’s CEO in March 2021. An Apollo review found he paid Epstein $158 million for estate planning and tax work. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee is now investigating Black’s taxes and those payments to Epstein. Black said he paid all his taxes. Black declined to comment about the scheduled meetings. Apollo has said Epstein was working for Black, not Apollo."

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/jeffrey-epstein-calendar-names-ec88e7a0?mod=hp_lista_pos3 Betathetapi454 (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Information added twice
Can someone please remove the duplicate entry for the new allegation? It appears both under Jeffrey Epstein relationship and Sexual misconduct accusations. I think it makes sense to be in the latter or, given that all allegations seem to revolve around Epstein's sphere of influence, both sections are combined into the Jeffrey Epstein relationship section. Abacrombi (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Deduplication made Jontel (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Father's suicide
Article currently reads:
 * In 1975, his father committed suicide, jumping out of a window in his 44th floor office in the Pan Am Building in New York City. It was later made public that, at the time, federal regulators were investigating allegations that United Brands was bribing Honduran government officials with Black's authorization to gain a major reduction in banana export taxes paid by the company; United Brands contended that it was a victim of extortion in Honduras.

Given that we already have a full article on his father, and that there is no direct connection between Leon's business interests and his father's, I don't see why need all this detail on the suicide. I suggest we stop with "In 1975, his father committed suicide." --Macrakis (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. Please implement.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sexual assault lawsuit dropped
Hi, if you are going to keep the article with extended protection, please add that the lawsuit has since been dropped with prejudice. If we are going to add allegations into articles, we need to ensure to keep track and update them when the case develops - these allegations can be incredibly damaging to a persons reputation so we need to take them seriously. Please see reference: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/20/woman-drops-claim-of-leon-black-rape-at-jeffrey-epstein-mansion.html

Suggested addition to end of second paragraph under Sexual misconduct accusations section: In February 2024, the lawsuit was dropped with prejudice by Pierson. Black did not make a payment to settle the case and issued a statement reading "I have never met Ms. Pierson. I have no further comment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacrombi (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @SPECIFICO perhaps you can help with this one? Abacrombi (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)