Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

UpdatedSeptember 8, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

By Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz – https://www.linkedin.com/company/wachtell-lipton-rosen-&-katz/, Public Domain, Link

Snapshot

The documented connection between Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Jeffrey Epstein arose primarily after Epstein’s crimes and his relationship with Leslie “Les” Wexner became a corporate crisis for Victoria’s Secret and L Brands.

Wachtell was not Epstein’s known criminal defense firm. No verified public record establishes that Wachtell represented Epstein during the Palm Beach Police investigation, negotiated the 2007 non prosecution agreement, defended him following his 2019 federal arrest, or represented his estate after his death.

Instead, L Brands retained Wachtell in connection with a special board committee examining shareholder allegations concerning Epstein, Wexner, senior executives, workplace misconduct, and the board’s corporate oversight.

The official settlement notice states that the allegations included company ties to Epstein, sexual harassment, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste.

Wachtell attorney William Savitt represented the L Brands special committee during the investigation and the settlement negotiations that followed.

The committee said it conducted a thorough and independent investigation. It concluded that pursuing litigation against the directors was not in the company’s interests but that a global settlement could benefit the corporation and its shareholders.

The complete Wachtell investigative report has never been released publicly. The public therefore knows the committee’s conclusion and the reforms produced through settlement, but it cannot review all the evidence, interviews, factual findings, or legal reasoning behind the decision.

That missing record is the central issue in evaluating Wachtell’s role.

What Is Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz?

Wachtell’s official history states that the New York law firm was founded in 1965. It became one of the most influential firms in American corporate law.

The firm advises major corporations, boards, special committees, and executives on mergers, acquisitions, corporate governance, securities disputes, shareholder litigation, and internal investigations.

Its litigation practice handles significant corporate disputes, including claims involving director conduct and fiduciary duties.

Wachtell’s work for L Brands fell within this corporate practice. The firm was not acting as a police agency or public prosecutor. It was retained as legal counsel to a committee of a corporate board.

That distinction affected the investigation’s purpose, confidentiality, and public disclosure.

The Connection Began With Les Wexner

Epstein’s connection with L Brands came through Les Wexner, the company’s founder and longtime chief executive.

Wexner employed Epstein as a personal financial adviser and granted him power of attorney in 1991. Epstein obtained extensive authority over Wexner’s personal finances, property transactions, taxes, staffing, and other affairs.

A released biographical document, EFTA00589409, describes Wexner as a client of Epstein’s financial management business and presents their relationship as involving real estate and other projects. The document appears promotional and is not an independent financial audit, but it demonstrates how Epstein presented his relationship with Wexner.

Epstein never held a verified formal position with Victoria’s Secret or L Brands. However, he reportedly attended Victoria’s Secret events, communicated with company executives, and claimed that he could arrange modeling opportunities.

EFTA00014526 preserves reporting about Epstein’s contact with Victoria’s Secret models, L Brands executives, fashion shows, and modeling agent Jean Luc Brunel. The document itself is forwarded reporting rather than an independent investigative finding.

The gap between Epstein’s lack of official employment and his genuine access to Wexner became one of the central questions facing L Brands.

Epstein’s Use of the Victoria’s Secret Name

Epstein allegedly invoked the Victoria’s Secret name when approaching aspiring models.

Model Alicia Arden filed a police report in 1997 after Epstein allegedly assaulted her during what she believed would be a meeting concerning the Victoria’s Secret catalog.

The New York Times investigation of Epstein and Wexner documented accounts that Epstein used his association with Wexner to obtain wealth, status, and access to women.

Vogue’s review of the relationship also describes the Arden allegation and Epstein’s efforts to present himself as someone capable of arranging Victoria’s Secret work.

The evidence does not establish that Victoria’s Secret authorized Epstein to recruit models. The concern was that his genuine relationship with Wexner made an unauthorized claim appear believable.

Warnings Reportedly Reached Company Leadership

The New York Times investigation reported that two senior executives warned Wexner during the 1990s that Epstein was claiming to recruit for Victoria’s Secret.

Wexner’s representatives provided a narrower account. In the statement reproduced by Vogue, Wexner’s attorney said the issue reached him once. Wexner reportedly confronted Epstein, prohibited him from claiming a company affiliation, and received a denial from Epstein.

The accounts differ about how many warnings occurred. They agree that the concern reached Wexner.

This raised corporate governance questions about whether L Brands documented the warning, investigated Epstein, contacted affected women, restricted his access, or alerted law enforcement.

Those questions later became relevant to the shareholder demands investigated by Wachtell.

Maria Farmer and the Wexner Property

Maria Farmer worked for Epstein as an artist and art adviser.

Farmer alleged that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sexually assaulted her in 1996 while she was staying at a property within Wexner’s New Albany estate.

Farmer said she attempted to leave but was prevented from doing so for a period by security personnel. She later reported Epstein and Maxwell to federal authorities.

The allegations placed part of Epstein’s conduct within an environment controlled by Wexner. They did not establish that L Brands or Victoria’s Secret employed Farmer or directed the alleged abuse.

Vanity Fair’s investigation of Wexner and Epstein discusses Farmer’s allegations and their relevance to the later L Brands shareholder litigation.

Wexner has denied knowing Farmer or knowing about Epstein’s abuse.

The First L Brands Investigation

After Epstein’s July 2019 arrest, L Brands retained Davis Polk & Wardwell to investigate the relationship involving Epstein, Wexner, and the company.

Bloomberg Law reported that L Brands hired outside counsel to examine whether Epstein had ties to the corporation.

Davis Polk already served as outside counsel to L Brands. Abigail Wexner had previously worked at the firm, and Wexner business adviser Dennis Hersch was a former Davis Polk partner.

Those relationships did not automatically prevent Davis Polk from conducting the investigation. They did create questions about independence.

According to Bloomberg Law’s later analysis, shareholder litigation argued that Davis Polk was too close to L Brands and the Wexner family to appear fully independent.

The Davis Polk report was not released publicly.

Vanity Fair reported that some L Brands board members criticized what Davis Polk delivered near the end of 2020. The company subsequently retained Wachtell for a separate investigation through a special board committee.

The Shareholder Demands

L Brands shareholders sought company records and demanded an investigation into alleged failures of leadership and oversight.

The official settlement notice identifies several demands and legal proceedings.

They included:

A litigation demand submitted by Milton Rudi in February 2020 and supplemented in April 2020
Books and records demands from the Oregon Department of Justice
A books and records demand from shareholder Lisa Giarratano
A later demand from the Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System
The Ohio derivative action, Rudi v. Wexner
The Delaware derivative action, Lambrecht v. Wexner

The Bloomberg Law report on the Delaware lawsuit describes allegations that senior L Brands leaders permitted an entrenched culture of harassment and failed to address Epstein related risks.

The allegations extended beyond Epstein. They included workplace harassment, discrimination, retaliation, misconduct by senior executives, corporate waste, and failures of board oversight.

The directors denied wrongdoing. Allegations in a shareholder complaint are not judicial findings.

Creation of the Special Committee

On May 14, 2020, the L Brands board created a special committee.

The settlement record filed by Bath & Body Works states that the committee received the full authority of the board to review, investigate, and evaluate the shareholder demands.

The committee could retain independent advisers and take actions it considered necessary to protect the company and its shareholders.

Sarah Nash, chair of the L Brands board, led the special committee.

Reuters’ account of the settlement identifies Wachtell attorney William Savitt and Porter Wright attorney Robert Trafford as counsel for the committee.

This was separate from the attorneys representing Wexner and the other individual defendants.

Wachtell’s Investigative Assignment

The formal settlement notice says the allegations investigated by the committee included:

Sexual harassment and misconduct
Retaliation and discriminatory workplace practices
Alleged ties between L Brands and Epstein
Corporate waste
Breaches of fiduciary duty
The board’s response to senior executive misconduct

The Epstein portion of the investigation potentially involved Wexner’s decision to give Epstein broad financial authority, Epstein’s access to company personnel and events, and the warnings reportedly given to corporate leadership.

The committee also had reason to examine the company’s relationships with models, agencies, photographers, and outside contractors because Epstein allegedly used modeling opportunities as a means of approaching young women.

The public record does not identify every question Wachtell asked or every witness it interviewed.

William Savitt’s Role

William Savitt was the Wachtell lawyer publicly identified as counsel for the special committee.

Reuters named Savitt among the attorneys representing the committee during the settlement process.

Savitt was a prominent corporate litigator and later became cochair of Wachtell’s executive committee and litigation department.

His work placed Wachtell between several groups with different legal interests:

The independent special committee
The full L Brands board
Wexner and the other individual defendants
Shareholders demanding corporate action
Attorneys pursuing derivative claims
Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works

Savitt performed this work as a Wachtell attorney. In July 2026, he left Wachtell with five other partners and joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

The Gibson Dunn announcement identifies Savitt as cochair of its global litigation practice.

His later move has no established connection with the L Brands investigation.

What the Committee Reviewed

The public settlement filing states that the special committee investigated the allegations over many months.

Shareholder attorneys received internal company records that included:

Board meeting minutes
Committee minutes
Board packages
Corporate codes of conduct
Investigation manuals
Harassment policies
Complaint procedures
Materials concerning the independence of committee members

The settlement filing says shareholder attorneys held numerous meetings and telephone calls with special committee counsel.

Those attorneys pressed Wachtell for detailed descriptions of the committee’s process and progress. They also supplied their own investigation results, suggested additional areas of inquiry, and presented proposed reforms.

This shows that Wachtell’s work was discussed and challenged during the settlement process. It does not reveal the complete investigative record.

The Special Committee Chose Settlement

Following the investigation, the committee determined that pursuing litigation against the directors was not in the best interests of L Brands or its shareholders.

The SEC filed settlement notice states that the committee instead concluded that a global settlement might serve those interests.

That conclusion was not the same as finding that every allegation was false.

A special committee may decide against litigation because of legal uncertainty, litigation costs, insurance issues, evidentiary problems, reputational risk, or the value of obtaining reforms without years of additional court proceedings.

Without Wachtell’s complete report, the public cannot determine how the committee weighed those factors.

The Unreleased Wachtell Report

Wachtell’s complete report has not been released publicly.

Bloomberg Law reported that Wachtell conducted a separate investigation after criticism of the earlier Davis Polk process.

Vanity Fair likewise reported that L Brands retained Wachtell to examine the Wexner and Epstein relationship after shareholders accused the first investigation of being inadequate.

The public does not have Wachtell’s:

Complete witness list
Interview memoranda
Document index
Credibility findings
Analysis of Wexner’s statements
Findings about Epstein’s contact with L Brands executives
Findings about Victoria’s Secret events
Findings concerning aspiring models
Analysis of warnings reportedly given to Wexner
Findings concerning Maria Farmer
Findings about Ed Razek’s contact with Epstein
Legal analysis supporting the decision not to sue

The report may be protected by attorney client privilege or attorney work product protections.

Confidentiality does not prove a coverup. It does prevent the public from evaluating how thoroughly the firm investigated the people who controlled the company.

The Questions the Missing Report Could Answer

The unreleased investigation could potentially clarify several unresolved questions.

Did Wachtell determine exactly when Wexner first learned that Epstein was presenting himself as a Victoria’s Secret recruiter?

Did it identify the executives who reportedly warned Wexner?

Did it locate written records of those warnings?

Did it examine whether Epstein continued attending company events after the warnings?

Did it determine whether company employees referred models or aspiring models to Epstein?

Did it interview Alicia Arden or Maria Farmer?

Did it investigate reported contact between Epstein and Ed Razek?

Did it review communications involving modeling agent Jean Luc Brunel or MC2 Model Management?

Did it examine models’ reported visits to Little St. James?

Did it investigate whether assets transferred from Wexner helped Epstein present himself as independently wealthy?

The public filings do not answer these questions.

Ed Razek and Epstein

Ed Razek was a senior L Brands executive closely involved with Victoria’s Secret marketing and model selection.

EFTA00014526 preserves reporting that businessman William Mook accompanied Razek to Epstein’s Manhattan residence in 2005.

According to that account, young women who described themselves as models for Epstein greeted them.

The document does not establish that Razek knew the women’s ages, knew about Epstein’s crimes, or participated in criminal activity.

The reported visit was relevant to a corporate investigation because it indicated direct contact between Epstein and an executive involved with Victoria’s Secret models.

The public does not know what Wachtell concluded about that contact.

Sealed Material in the Rudi Case

The docket in Rudi v. Wexner shows that presentations connected with the settlement proceedings were submitted under seal.

The court requested the material for private review. Defendants Ed Razek and David Kollat supported keeping the presentations sealed.

The sealed material does not automatically contain evidence of criminal conduct. Its significance is that part of the evidentiary and legal record considered during settlement approval remains unavailable to the public.

The court docket documents the sealing orders, settlement motions, fairness hearing, and final approval.

Mediation and Negotiations

The parties entered mediation with retired federal judge Layn Phillips.

The official settlement record states that the parties participated in a full mediation session in April 2021.

Negotiations continued through smaller working groups. A second mediation in June 2021 produced an agreement in principle.

Shareholder attorneys then interviewed a special committee member and representatives of the committee’s counsel. They also reviewed documents supplied through the special committee.

Wachtell therefore performed more than an internal review. It also helped explain the committee’s process and negotiate the resolution of multiple shareholder claims.

The $90 Million Settlement

L Brands announced a settlement in July 2021.

The company’s official announcement described extensive workplace and governance reforms.

Victoria’s Secret & Co. and Bath & Body Works each agreed to provide $45 million, producing a total commitment of $90 million.

Reuters reported that the settlement resolved claims accusing the board of allowing a culture of harassment and maintaining ties to Epstein.

The reforms addressed:

Sexual harassment policies
Retaliation protections
Complaint reporting
Internal investigations
Mandatory training
Board oversight
Diversity and inclusion programs
Protections for models
Oversight of photographers and outside contractors
Restrictions on nondisclosure agreements involving harassment claims

Cohen Milstein’s case summary describes the settlement as funding workplace and governance reforms intended to protect employees from discrimination and misconduct.

Quinn Emanuel’s settlement summary identifies additional protections for models working on Victoria’s Secret productions.

The defendants denied wrongdoing. The settlement was not an admission that L Brands, Wexner, or Wachtell participated in Epstein’s trafficking operation.

The Corporate Separation

While the litigation continued, L Brands separated its principal businesses.

Victoria’s Secret & Co. announced that it completed its separation from Bath & Body Works in August 2021.

The former L Brands corporation changed its name to Bath & Body Works, Inc.

The L Brands board announcement explains the separation and corporate name change.

The settlement therefore imposed reforms on two companies emerging from the former L Brands structure.

The separation did not establish wrongdoing, nor did it erase the history investigated by the special committee.

Court Approval

United States District Judge Michael Watson granted final approval to the settlement in May 2022.

The Rudi v. Wexner docket records the order approving the derivative settlement and awarding legal fees and expenses.

The court’s approval established that the agreement was legally acceptable as a resolution of the shareholder claims.

It did not convert every allegation in the complaints into a proven fact. It also did not release Wachtell’s complete investigative report.

Wachtell Represented the Committee, Not Wexner Personally

Wachtell represented the special committee in the shareholder investigation.

Reuters’ identification of the legal teams distinguishes committee counsel from attorneys representing the individual directors.

Wachtell’s client was the special committee. Other attorneys represented Wexner, the directors, L Brands, and the shareholder plaintiffs.

This distinction is important because a special committee is supposed to evaluate claims independently from the directors whose conduct is being examined.

The public record shows the formal separation of legal roles. The missing report prevents a complete independent assessment of how that separation operated in practice.

Did Wachtell Represent Jeffrey Epstein?

No verified public evidence reviewed for this article establishes that Wachtell represented Epstein personally.

The firm does not appear among the principal firms known to have negotiated the 2007 non prosecution agreement or defended Epstein in the 2019 federal prosecution.

No available record establishes that Wachtell represented:

Epstein during the Palm Beach investigation
Epstein in his Florida criminal case
Epstein during the federal non prosecution negotiations
Epstein following his 2019 arrest
Epstein’s estate
Ghislaine Maxwell
The Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program
Epstein’s companies in the United States Virgin Islands litigation

Wachtell’s documented role was institutional and retrospective. It advised the L Brands committee examining allegations connected with Epstein.

David Anders’ Epstein Voicemail

A released recording contains another documented appearance of the Wachtell name.

In EFTA00776196, Wachtell attorney David Anders leaves a message for someone named Steve.

Anders says he is returning a call concerning Epstein and provides information for reaching him after his return from travel.

The recording proves that Anders returned an Epstein related call.

It does not identify Steve fully, the client involved, the purpose of the contact, or the substance of any later conversation. It also does not establish whether the call concerned L Brands.

The voicemail is evidence of contact, not evidence that Wachtell represented Epstein.

Other Wachtell References in the Files

Wachtell also appears in released materials involving other legal matters.

For example, EFTA00314490 identifies Wachtell as counsel for former Bear Stearns executive Warren Spector in an arbitration proceeding.

Epstein previously worked at Bear Stearns, but that common institutional background does not establish that the arbitration concerned Epstein or that Wachtell represented him.

The presence of a document in an Epstein production can mean that investigators collected it, attorneys preserved it, or it appeared in a broader litigation file. It does not automatically turn everyone named in the document into an Epstein associate.

Each record must be evaluated according to its actual content.

Why Wachtell’s Role Matters

Wachtell occupied an important corporate gatekeeping position.

The firm had access to internal company information that the public did not possess. It advised the committee responsible for deciding whether L Brands should pursue claims against directors or resolve the matter through governance reforms.

The investigation potentially involved:

Wexner’s extraordinary delegation of authority to Epstein
Epstein’s use of the Victoria’s Secret name
Warnings reportedly given to company leadership
Alleged abuse within Wexner’s controlled environment
Contact between Epstein and L Brands executives
Epstein’s access to models and fashion events
The board’s response after Epstein’s conduct became public
A broader workplace culture involving harassment and retaliation allegations

The committee chose settlement rather than litigation against the directors.

That decision may have been reasonable. The absence of Wachtell’s complete report prevents the public from evaluating its factual foundation.

What the Evidence Establishes

The available evidence establishes that:

L Brands initially retained Davis Polk to investigate Wexner’s relationship with Epstein.
The Davis Polk report was not released publicly.
Shareholders questioned whether Davis Polk was sufficiently independent.
L Brands created a special committee in May 2020.
The committee received authority to investigate shareholder allegations and related litigation.
The allegations included company ties to Epstein, workplace misconduct, corporate waste, and failures of board oversight.
Wachtell served as counsel to the special committee.
William Savitt was publicly identified as a principal Wachtell attorney for the committee.
The committee said it conducted a thorough and independent investigation.
Shareholder attorneys pressed Wachtell for information about the investigation.
Wachtell participated in negotiations leading to a global settlement.
The special committee decided that pursuing litigation was not in the company’s interests.
The committee concluded that a settlement could benefit the company and its shareholders.
The settlement committed $90 million to workplace and governance reforms.
Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works each committed $45 million.
The reforms included protections addressing harassment, retaliation, models, photographers, and corporate oversight.
The defendants denied wrongdoing.
A federal court approved the settlement in 2022.
Wachtell’s complete investigative report remains unavailable publicly.
A released recording documents David Anders returning an Epstein related call.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

The available evidence does not establish that:

Wachtell represented Epstein personally.
Wachtell negotiated Epstein’s non prosecution agreement.
Wachtell represented Ghislaine Maxwell.
Wachtell represented Epstein’s estate.
Wachtell participated in Epstein’s crimes.
The firm knew about Epstein’s abuse before it became public.
The firm destroyed or concealed criminal evidence.
The special committee found every shareholder allegation true.
The special committee found every allegation false.
The settlement was an admission of criminal conduct.
The missing Wachtell report contains proof of a crime.
Confidentiality surrounding the report proves a coverup.
David Anders’ voicemail identifies Wachtell’s client.
Every Wachtell reference in the released files concerns Epstein.
William Savitt’s departure from Wachtell was connected to this investigation.

Investigative Assessment

Wachtell’s connection to Epstein was not a known social relationship or criminal defense representation.

It was a corporate accountability role.

The firm advised the L Brands special committee as it investigated allegations involving Wexner, Epstein, senior executives, workplace culture, and board oversight.

The settlement filings demonstrate that an investigation occurred, that shareholder attorneys received some internal records, and that Wachtell was questioned about the process.

The filings do not reveal the complete factual findings.

Without the report, the public cannot determine exactly what Wachtell concluded about Epstein’s access to L Brands, warnings given to Wexner, the treatment of aspiring models, contact with senior executives, or the adequacy of the company’s response.

The appropriate classification is:

Counsel to the L Brands special committee that investigated Epstein related corporate governance allegations and negotiated a settlement, with the complete findings remaining confidential.

That classification recognizes Wachtell’s meaningful institutional role without falsely describing it as Epstein’s law firm or accusing it of conduct the evidence does not establish.

Key Takeaways

Wachtell was not Epstein’s known criminal defense firm.
Its principal documented Epstein connection came through the L Brands investigation.
L Brands retained Wachtell after criticism of the earlier Davis Polk investigation.
Wachtell represented the special committee rather than Wexner personally.
William Savitt served as a principal attorney for the committee.
The committee investigated allegations involving Epstein, workplace misconduct, corporate waste, and board oversight.
Shareholder counsel reviewed some company documents and questioned Wachtell about its process.
The committee chose settlement instead of litigation against the directors.
The settlement committed $90 million to workplace and governance reforms.
The defendants admitted no wrongdoing.
A federal court approved the settlement in 2022.
Wachtell’s complete investigative report has not been released.
The David Anders voicemail documents an Epstein related contact but does not identify a client.
Other Wachtell appearances in the files concern separate legal matters.
The missing report prevents a full public assessment of what L Brands learned about Epstein.

Primary Evidence Sources

EFTA00776196 contains David Anders’ voicemail returning a call concerning Epstein. It proves the contact occurred but does not identify the client or subject.
EFTA00314490 identifies Wachtell as counsel for Warren Spector in an arbitration. It does not establish representation of Epstein.
EFTA00589409 contains an edited biographical account of Epstein’s financial relationship with Wexner.
EFTA00014526 preserves reporting about Epstein’s contact with L Brands executives, Victoria’s Secret models, and the modeling industry.
Official L Brands settlement notice describes the shareholder claims, special committee investigation, communications with Wachtell, mediation, and settlement.
Bath & Body Works settlement filing identifies alleged company ties to Epstein among the matters investigated.
Victoria’s Secret Form 8 K contains the derivative settlement notice following the corporate separation.
Rudi v. Wexner docket documents the litigation, sealed presentations, settlement proceedings, and final court approval.
L Brands settlement announcement provides the company’s description of the agreement and corporate reforms.

External Sources

PostedDecember 8, 2025