Litigation Related to Modeling Agencies and Jeffrey Epstein

UpdatedSeptember 9, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Modeling appears throughout the history of Jeffrey Epstein because promises of modeling work, photography sessions, travel, housing, and introductions were repeatedly described as methods of approaching young women and girls.

The litigation record, however, is narrower than the wider documentary record.

The modeling business most directly connected to Epstein litigation was MC2 Model Management, operated by French modeling agent Jean Luc Brunel. Brunel and MC2 sued Epstein in Florida, claiming that publicity surrounding Epstein’s sexual abuse scandal damaged their reputation and business. The lawsuit ended without a determination that their underlying allegations were true because Brunel and MC2 failed to serve Epstein properly.

Survivors also described modeling as a recruitment device in civil cases against Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Those cases documented serious allegations involving Brunel, MC2, and modeling opportunities, but they generally did not name modeling agencies as defendants.

A separate New York case brought by Ava Cordero alleged that Epstein promised to help her obtain modeling work. Her lawsuit named Victoria’s Secret related entities and Leslie Wexner, but the published decision principally addressed whether her claims against Epstein and his entities were filed within the applicable limitation periods.

French authorities later prosecuted Brunel personally. He died in custody before trial, leaving the criminal allegations unresolved.

In 2025 and 2026, MC2 related financial transactions appeared in institutional liability litigation against the Bank of New York Mellon. That case was dismissed with prejudice at the district court level, and the plaintiff filed an appeal.

The record therefore establishes extensive litigation involving modeling allegations, Brunel, MC2, Epstein, survivors, and financial institutions. It does not establish that every modeling agency, model scout, photographer, fashion brand, or model mentioned in Epstein related records participated in trafficking.

Why Modeling Appears Throughout the Epstein Record

Epstein and people around him frequently presented access to modeling, photography, education, travel, and wealthy contacts as opportunities for young women.

Modeling was especially useful as a recruitment pretext because legitimate modeling work can involve:

Travel between countries
Meetings in private residences
Photography sessions
Introductions to wealthy clients
Agency sponsored immigration documents
Shared apartments for young models
Informal scouting outside established agencies
Significant differences in age, wealth, and professional power

None of these activities is inherently criminal. Together, however, they can create conditions in which a young person becomes dependent on an agent, sponsor, employer, landlord, or immigration intermediary.

Survivor accounts concerning Epstein and Brunel repeatedly described modeling promises as a means of obtaining access to young women and girls. The legal question in each case was not whether modeling occurred, but whether a particular person or organization knowingly participated in abuse, recruitment, coercion, transportation, or financial facilitation.

The Central Modeling Figures

The most important modeling figure in the Epstein record is Jean Luc Brunel.

Brunel worked in the international modeling industry through businesses including Karin Models and MC2 Model Management. Released evidence connects him with Epstein through travel, communications, money, housing arrangements, and survivor allegations.

MC2 operated in New York and Miami and promoted international model scouting. A preserved version of the agency’s website stated that its scouting division accepted applicants between thirteen and twenty years old.

EFTA01728258 preserves MC2 website material describing its international scouting operation and applicant age range. It documents that the business openly recruited teenagers, including minors. It does not establish that every minor who contacted MC2 was exploited or introduced to Epstein.

The relationship was also financial.

EFTA00092643 is a government prepared payment timeline that records transfers involving MC2, including payments of $25,000, $29,440, and another $25,000 during December 2013 and January 2014. The same record identifies Brunel and MC2 within the government’s review of Epstein related financial activity.

These transactions establish that Epstein transferred money to MC2. The document does not establish the purpose of every payment or prove that each transfer financed trafficking.

Brunel and MC2 Sue Epstein

The only major published American case in which a modeling agency directly sued Epstein was Epstein v. Brunel.

In January 2015, Brunel and MC2 filed an action in the Circuit Court for Miami Dade County, Florida. The lower court case was numbered 14 21348.

Brunel and MC2 alleged that criminal charges and publicity involving Epstein caused the media to associate them with his sexual misconduct. According to the complaint summarized in the appellate decision, those stories produced a substantial loss of business.

The lawsuit is significant because Brunel and MC2 placed their relationship with Epstein directly before a court. Their position was not that no relationship existed. Their argument was that media coverage portrayed that relationship inaccurately and caused commercial damage.

A released litigation document, EFTA00792289, contains an appellate brief submitted for Brunel and MC2. It documents their legal arguments about service of process and the continuation of the Florida action. It does not prove the factual allegations underlying their damages claims.

Contemporary Reuters reporting on the lawsuit described Brunel’s claim that his business lost substantial revenue because of its public association with Epstein.

The complaint remained a claim by Brunel and MC2. It was never tested through a completed trial.

The Service of Process Appeal

Epstein challenged whether Brunel and MC2 had served him properly with the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs first attempted service at a New York address. After Epstein successfully challenged that effort, the trial court ordered them to complete service within 120 days.

Brunel and MC2 then delivered papers to an employee at an Epstein related business address in the United States Virgin Islands. They did not attempt to serve Epstein personally at Little St. James, where he resided.

The trial court initially ruled that service was sufficient. Epstein appealed.

In April 2019, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal held that Brunel and MC2 had not complied with Florida’s substituted service requirements. The court directed that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

The full opinion in Epstein v. Brunel, 271 So. 3d 1173 explains that the appeal concerned personal jurisdiction and service, not whether Brunel or MC2 participated in Epstein’s crimes.

The court observed that Little St. James had a sizable dock and could have been approached by a process server. The opinion rejected the suggestion that Epstein’s residence on a private island made personal service impossible.

The dismissal without prejudice was procedural. It did not determine whether the media reports were false, whether MC2 suffered the claimed damages, or whether the allegations connecting Brunel with Epstein’s abuse were true.

What the MC2 Lawsuit Established

The Florida litigation established that:

Brunel and MC2 acknowledged a significant public association with Epstein.
They claimed that the association damaged their modeling business.
They considered the alleged financial damage serious enough to sue Epstein.
Epstein contested service rather than litigating the merits at that stage.
The Florida appellate court found that service was defective.
The action was ordered dismissed without prejudice.

The lawsuit did not establish that Brunel and MC2 were innocent of the allegations reported about them. It also did not establish that they participated in trafficking.

Because the litigation ended on service grounds, no jury evaluated the evidence and no court entered factual findings on the central accusations.

Virginia Giuffre’s Allegations Involving Brunel

Virginia Giuffre made some of the most detailed public allegations concerning Brunel and modeling recruitment.

Giuffre alleged that Brunel used promises of modeling opportunities to recruit young women and girls from economically vulnerable backgrounds. She further alleged that Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to Brunel.

These allegations appeared in sworn statements and litigation connected with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act proceedings and Giuffre v. Maxwell.

The complete federal docket for Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15 cv 07433 contains the filings, discovery disputes, deposition materials, sealing litigation, and later unsealing orders through which many Epstein related allegations became public.

EFTA00021553 contains a court related record preserving Giuffre’s allegations about Brunel offering modeling work to young women and girls. It establishes that the allegations entered the formal litigation record. It is not a judgment against Brunel or MC2.

EFTA00022133 contains a compilation of allegations involving people whom Epstein and Maxwell were accused of directing victims to encounter. Brunel appears in that record. The document demonstrates the scope of allegations supplied to investigators and attorneys. It does not mean that every allegation in the compilation was adjudicated.

Brunel denied wrongdoing.

The settlement of Giuffre v. Maxwell resolved Giuffre’s defamation claims against Maxwell. It did not produce a verdict against Brunel or MC2.

Efforts to Obtain Brunel’s Testimony

Brunel also appeared in Giuffre v. Maxwell as a potential witness with information relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses.

The litigation record includes efforts to locate him, serve him, and obtain testimony. His international residence and travel complicated those efforts.

This is legally important because being identified as a witness or discovery subject is different from being a defendant. A court may authorize discovery concerning a nonparty because that person possesses relevant information. Such an order does not establish the person’s liability.

The Giuffre v. Maxwell docket documents the discovery process. The litigation never produced a completed trial in which Brunel’s conduct was adjudicated.

Ava Cordero v. Jeffrey Epstein

Ava Cordero filed a New York civil action against Epstein in October 2007.

Cordero alleged that Epstein sexually assaulted her while she was under seventeen. Her allegations included the claim that Epstein promised to help her obtain a modeling career.

The case was filed in the Supreme Court of New York County as Cordero v. Epstein, Index No. 113903/07.

The published Cordero v. Epstein decision records the allegations, the procedural history, and the dispute over whether Cordero qualified for a statutory tolling provision that would extend the filing deadline.

Cordero’s amended pleadings named additional defendants, including Nine East 71st Street Corporation, Jeffrey Epstein & Co., Leslie Wexner, and Victoria’s Secret related entities.

This made the action one of the few Epstein survivor cases in which a major fashion brand appeared in the case caption or pleadings.

However, Victoria’s Secret was a fashion retailer and brand, not a modeling agency. Its presence in the litigation should not be treated as proof that it operated a model recruitment agency for Epstein.

The Cordero Dismissal

Epstein and certain Epstein related entities moved to dismiss Cordero’s claims as untimely.

The court concluded that Cordero had not established the level of incapacity required for the insanity toll under New York law. It dismissed the claims against the moving Epstein related defendants and denied her request to add additional claims.

The decision was based principally on limitation periods and tolling law.

It was not a factual determination that the alleged sexual abuse did not occur.

The distinction is essential. A limitation dismissal means that the court found the lawsuit was filed outside the legally permitted period. It does not produce a trial verdict concerning the underlying conduct.

The published opinion also states that other defendants did not participate in the motion before the court. The decision therefore should not be described as a comprehensive ruling on every defendant named in every version of Cordero’s pleadings.

Media Litigation Following the Cordero Case

Cordero also sued the publisher of the New York Post and other defendants after reporting publicly disclosed sensitive personal information about her.

The related Ava v. NYP Holdings decision documents the newspaper’s coverage of the Epstein lawsuit and Cordero’s claims for defamation, privacy violations, and emotional distress.

An appellate decision is available in Ava v. NYP Holdings, 64 A.D.3d 407.

This litigation demonstrates how survivors and accusers could face a second form of harm after filing a case. Personal histories, medical information, gender identity, and sexual allegations could become subjects of sensational public coverage.

The media litigation did not determine whether Epstein’s alleged assaults occurred. It addressed what publishers and other defendants could lawfully report about the court filings and Cordero.

French Criminal Proceedings Against Jean Luc Brunel

French prosecutors opened an Epstein related investigation in 2019.

Authorities examined allegations involving Brunel’s work as a modeling agent, his contact with young models, and his relationship with Epstein. Investigators searched locations associated with Brunel and obtained testimony from women who accused him of sexual misconduct.

In December 2020, Brunel was arrested and formally placed under investigation in France. Reuters reported the French judicial action and the allegations being examined.

Under French criminal procedure, being placed under formal investigation is not a conviction. It means that an investigating judge determined that the evidentiary threshold for a formal investigation had been met.

Brunel faced allegations including rape of a minor and sexual harassment. He denied wrongdoing.

He died in custody in February 2022 before a trial could be completed. His death prevented the French criminal case from producing either a conviction or an acquittal.

The proceedings concerned Brunel personally. No completed French criminal judgment found MC2, Karin Models, or another modeling agency criminally liable for Epstein’s trafficking operation.

Survivor Accounts in the French Investigation

Women interviewed in connection with the French proceedings described encounters arising from model scouting, agency meetings, test photographs, and private appointments.

Some accounts concerned Karin Models. Others concerned Brunel’s personal conduct or young women introduced through the international modeling industry.

Reporting by The Guardian documented accounts from six former models who described alleged abuse by Brunel.

These accounts are significant evidence from alleged victims and witnesses. They should not be dismissed merely because Brunel died before trial.

At the same time, the absence of a completed prosecution means that the allegations did not result in final criminal findings.

In 2026, French authorities began reviewing newly released Epstein material for information relevant to Brunel and other unresolved investigative leads. Le Monde reported the renewed French review.

A renewed evidence review is an investigative development. It is not a new conviction or a finding that every person mentioned in the records committed an offense.

Financial Evidence Concerning MC2

The released Epstein records contain evidence of money moving between Epstein and MC2.

In addition to the payment timeline in EFTA00092643, the records include MC2 contact information, emails, agency materials, and communications involving Brunel.

EFTA01885978 contains MC2 Model Management contact information associated with Brunel. It helps document Brunel’s business role and the agency through which he communicated. It does not establish criminal conduct.

EFTA02424118 contains a communication involving Brunel and MC2 manager Jeff Fuller. It demonstrates continuing contact within the MC2 and Epstein network. It does not, standing alone, identify an exploited model or prove a trafficking transaction.

EFTA01746878 records a communication in which Brunel indicated that he did not want to discuss a matter by telephone or email. The message may justify investigative attention, but the desire to avoid electronic communication is not by itself proof of a crime.

EFTA00906771 contains a model’s concern about an MC2 visa situation and her ability to travel. It is relevant to understanding the dependence that foreign models could have on an agency. It does not establish that the writer was trafficked.

EFTA00926192 contains a complaint about money allegedly owed through the agency. It documents a financial dispute and the economic vulnerability that could arise in a model and agency relationship. It does not prove sexual exploitation.

These records become more significant when considered together, but each document must still be evaluated according to what it actually says.

Housing, Immigration, and Dependency

Epstein owned or controlled apartments used by women and models in New York.

Survivor allegations and later investigations described foreign models being housed in apartments while they pursued agency work or waited for immigration authorization.

Housing and immigration assistance can be legitimate services. They can also create substantial dependency when a young person’s income, visa status, residence, and professional future are all controlled by the same network.

The Model Alliance’s March 2026 letter requesting an investigation stated that Brunel rebranded the American division of Karin Models as MC2 with more than $1 million in financial backing from Epstein. The letter also cited allegations that underage foreign models recruited through MC2 were housed in Epstein owned apartments.

The Model Alliance letter is an advocacy document based on released records and survivor accounts. It is not a complaint filed by a prosecutor, a judicial opinion, or a finding of liability.

Its importance lies in the questions it presents for further investigation, particularly whether agency controlled housing, visas, and financial dependency facilitated access to vulnerable models.

Doe v. Bank of New York Mellon

MC2 related financial allegations later appeared in litigation against the Bank of New York Mellon.

In October 2025, a survivor using the name Jane Doe filed Doe v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, No. 1:25 cv 08525 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleged that BNY processed financial activity associated with Epstein’s network, including transactions involving Brunel and MC2. The plaintiff argued that the bank’s services helped support the broader trafficking operation.

BNY denied liability and moved to dismiss.

The court coordinated the case for pretrial purposes with a related action against Bank of America.

In January 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff granted BNY’s motion and dismissed the entire action against it with prejudice. The court’s February 2026 opinion explaining the dismissal concluded that the plaintiff had not adequately stated her claims against BNY.

The dismissal was a substantive victory for BNY at the district court level. It was not a judgment determining whether Brunel or MC2 participated in Epstein’s abuse.

The BNY docket records that the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in March 2026. The appeal means that the district court dismissal became subject to review. It does not suspend the importance of the dismissal as the operative district court judgment.

Bank Litigation and Modeling Evidence

Survivor lawsuits against financial institutions have frequently relied on evidence concerning modeling recruitment, payments to young women, agency transactions, apartments, travel, and Brunel.

The modeling evidence served several purposes:

To describe how Epstein allegedly located young women and girls
To identify transactions that plaintiffs argued should have raised compliance concerns
To show that Epstein continued financing people and businesses associated with young models
To demonstrate the international character of the alleged trafficking operation
To support claims that a financial institution could observe patterns invisible to an individual victim

This does not transform every bank case into a lawsuit against a modeling agency.

In most institutional cases, the banks were defendants while Brunel, MC2, and modeling related transactions appeared as evidence or factual allegations.

The legal question was whether a particular financial institution knowingly benefited from, facilitated, or failed to respond appropriately to Epstein’s trafficking. The court was not necessarily being asked to decide the liability of the modeling agency mentioned in the complaint.

Modeling Agencies Named in Evidence but Not Established as Defendants

Numerous modeling businesses appear in allegations, communications, media reports, or investigative records. Their appearance does not mean that each agency was sued.

MC2 Model Management

MC2 was a plaintiff in the Florida lawsuit against Epstein and appeared extensively in later evidence. No completed survivor trial produced a judgment holding MC2 liable for trafficking.

Karin Models

Karin Models was connected with Brunel’s earlier career and appeared in French investigative accounts. No completed criminal case produced a conviction of Karin Models as an organization.

Elite Model Management

Elite was mentioned in Brunel and MC2’s account of lost business and appears in the broader history of Brunel’s modeling career. That does not establish that Elite participated in Epstein’s crimes.

Next Model Management

Next and its founder Faith Kates appear in released communications and later advocacy demands for investigation. The public record reviewed for this article does not establish a survivor judgment against Next for participating in Epstein’s trafficking operation.

Victoria’s Secret and L Brands

Victoria’s Secret related entities appeared in Cordero’s pleadings, and Leslie Wexner’s relationship with Epstein created a separate body of litigation and investigation. Victoria’s Secret was a fashion brand, not a modeling agency.

The presence of Victoria’s Secret models in Epstein related stories does not establish that the brand supplied victims to him.

Trump Model Management

Online discussions sometimes connect Trump Model Management to Epstein because allegations involving Epstein and Donald Trump included references to modeling opportunities or fashion events.

No verified court judgment reviewed for this article establishes that Trump Model Management operated as part of Epstein’s trafficking network.

Midland Management and Casting

Rachel Chandler and Midland became subjects of public tips and internet allegations. Those materials are not modeling agency litigation.

No verified court case reviewed for this article establishes that Midland supplied models to Epstein or MC2.

The 2026 Model Alliance Request

In March 2026, the Model Alliance and more than forty survivors and advocates called for a broader investigation of the modeling industry’s connections to Epstein.

The Model Alliance letter asked the New York Attorney General and congressional investigators to examine whether agencies, agents, scouts, and related businesses facilitated abuse or ignored warning signs.

The Guardian reported on the request for an industry inquiry and the concerns raised by model advocate Sara Ziff.

The request reflects an important gap in the historical record. The litigation produced substantial evidence about Epstein, Maxwell, Brunel, MC2, banks, and individual survivors, but it did not produce a comprehensive judicial accounting of the fashion and modeling industry.

An advocacy request for investigation is not proof that every organization named in the request violated the law. It identifies questions that advocates believe remain unanswered.

Why Few Agencies Were Sued Directly

Several factors help explain why modeling agencies were rarely named as defendants in survivor litigation.

First, many alleged events occurred years before survivors were able to file claims. Limitation periods blocked or complicated older actions.

Second, survivors did not always know which company employed an agent, financed an apartment, sponsored a visa, or paid for travel.

Third, Epstein frequently operated through informal relationships, personal assistants, shell companies, private residences, and individual intermediaries.

Fourth, a modeling opportunity could be used as a pretext without the knowledge of the agency whose name was invoked.

Fifth, documents concerning payments, immigration, and corporate ownership were not publicly available when many early cases were filed.

Sixth, litigation strategy often focused on defendants with the clearest direct conduct or the financial resources to satisfy a judgment.

Seventh, Epstein’s 2007 nonprosecution agreement, his 2008 plea arrangement, and the secrecy surrounding his network limited the evidence available to survivors.

The absence of a lawsuit against a particular agency does not prove that no misconduct occurred. It also does not permit an assumption of guilt without evidence.

What the Evidence Establishes

The available evidence establishes that:

Epstein maintained a substantial relationship with Jean Luc Brunel.
Brunel operated MC2 Model Management.
Epstein transferred money to MC2.
MC2 openly recruited teenage applicants, including minors.
Brunel and MC2 sued Epstein in Florida over alleged damage caused by their public association with him.
The Florida action ended on defective service grounds rather than through a trial on the merits.
Virginia Giuffre made sworn allegations involving Brunel, modeling recruitment, and trafficking.
Brunel denied wrongdoing.
Brunel was formally investigated in France for serious sexual offenses.
Brunel died before the French case could reach trial.
Ava Cordero alleged that Epstein used the promise of modeling assistance as part of his approach to her.
Cordero’s case was dismissed against the moving Epstein related defendants on limitation grounds.
Victoria’s Secret related entities appeared in Cordero’s amended pleadings.
MC2 related transactions appeared in the BNY institutional liability litigation.
The district court dismissed the BNY action with prejudice.
The BNY plaintiff filed an appeal.
Modeling industry advocates requested a broader investigation in 2026.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

The evidence does not establish that:

Every model represented by MC2 was abused or trafficked.
Every payment from Epstein to MC2 financed illegal conduct.
Every modeling agency associated with Brunel knew about Epstein’s crimes.
Elite Model Management participated in Epstein’s trafficking operation.
Next Model Management was judicially found liable for Epstein related trafficking.
Victoria’s Secret operated a recruitment pipeline for Epstein.
Trump Model Management participated in Epstein’s crimes.
Midland supplied victims to Epstein or MC2.
Every person housed in an Epstein controlled apartment was a victim.
Every model who experienced visa or payment problems was trafficked.
Brunel’s formal investigation in France was a conviction.
The Florida lawsuit exonerated Brunel or MC2.
The dismissal of the BNY case resolved the allegations against Brunel or MC2.
Every allegation contained in an FBI file or court filing was independently corroborated.
The modeling industry as a whole participated in Epstein’s crimes.

Investigative Assessment

The litigation record reveals a pattern that is broader than any single lawsuit.

Modeling opportunities repeatedly appeared at the point where young women and girls entered Epstein’s social and professional world. Brunel and MC2 were connected to Epstein by money, communications, business relations, and survivor allegations. Those connections are substantially stronger than the anonymous tips or social photographs used to accuse unrelated agencies and fashion professionals online.

At the same time, the legal record is incomplete.

The MC2 lawsuit ended because of defective service. Giuffre’s case against Maxwell settled. Cordero’s case encountered limitation barriers. Brunel died before trial in France. The BNY case was dismissed before a full trial and then appealed.

As a result, courts generated extensive records without resolving every central factual question.

The appropriate conclusion is not that the modeling allegations were disproved. It is that the most serious allegations involving Brunel and MC2 were never fully adjudicated in a completed trial.

Key Takeaways

Jean Luc Brunel and MC2 occupy the center of Epstein related modeling litigation.
Brunel and MC2 sued Epstein for commercial damage caused by their public association with him.
Their lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice because they failed to serve Epstein properly.
The Florida decision did not determine whether the allegations involving Brunel and MC2 were true.
Survivors described modeling promises as a method of recruitment.
Virginia Giuffre made sworn allegations involving Brunel and modeling recruitment.
Ava Cordero alleged that Epstein promised to help her enter modeling.
Cordero’s claims against the moving Epstein related defendants were dismissed on limitation grounds.
French prosecutors pursued Brunel personally, but he died before trial.
Financial records document payments from Epstein to MC2.
MC2 transactions later appeared in litigation against BNY.
The BNY action was dismissed with prejudice at the district court level and appealed.
Many agencies appear in evidence or advocacy materials without having been defendants in Epstein survivor litigation.
A modeling agency’s name in an email, photograph, tip, or court filing does not establish liability.
The litigation record supports continued investigation while requiring careful separation of allegations, evidence, and adjudicated facts.

Primary Court Records and Evidence

Epstein v. Brunel, 271 So. 3d 1173 is the Florida appellate opinion ordering dismissal of Brunel and MC2’s action because of defective service. It did not resolve the underlying allegations.
EFTA00792289 contains an appellate brief submitted in the Brunel and MC2 litigation. It documents the parties’ service arguments.
Cordero v. Epstein, 2008 NY Slip Op 28391 contains the published ruling on limitation periods and Cordero’s proposed claims.
Ava v. NYP Holdings concerns media reporting about Cordero’s Epstein lawsuit.
The appellate decision in Ava v. NYP Holdings addresses the related defamation litigation.
The Giuffre v. Maxwell docket contains the federal filings, discovery disputes, depositions, and unsealing litigation involving Giuffre’s allegations.
EFTA00021553 preserves allegations concerning Brunel’s use of modeling opportunities. It is an allegation record, not a judgment.
EFTA00022133 contains a compilation of survivor allegations that includes Brunel.
EFTA00092643 records payments involving MC2 within a government prepared Epstein financial timeline.
EFTA01728258 contains MC2 website material describing its international scouting operation and teenage applicant age range.
EFTA00906771 records concerns about an MC2 visa situation.
EFTA00926192 contains a model’s complaint about agency related payments.
EFTA01746878 contains a communication from Brunel concerning avoidance of telephone or email discussion.
EFTA01885978 documents MC2 contact information associated with Brunel.
EFTA02424118 contains communications involving Brunel and MC2 personnel.
The docket for Doe v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation records the complaint, dismissal, judgment, and notice of appeal.
The February 2026 BNY dismissal opinion explains why the district court dismissed the action against BNY with prejudice.
The Model Alliance investigation request summarizes the organization’s concerns about modeling industry facilitation. It is an advocacy request, not a court finding.

PostedDecember 8, 2025