Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

non conveniens. The court denied the motion, finding that because the plaintiffs resided all over
the world, New York was as convenient a location as any, and the plaintiffs’ choice of forum
deserved deference. Witnesses and evidence were located in New York, suggesting that the
plaintiffs’ forum choice was motivated by convenience rather than forum shopping. Unlike other
similar cases where courts had granted dismissal based on forum non conveniens, the plaintiffs in
this case had not admitted that their decision to sue in the United States was motivated by factors
strongly indicative of forum shopping.
In re Heckmann Corp. Sec. Litig., 2011 WL 2413999 (D. Del. June 16, 2011).
O.4
The plaintiff filed claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of a
shareholder-approved merger involving two Delaware corporations. The individual defendants
moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on grounds that they were not Delaware
residents and their only tie to the state owed to their status as officers and directors of a Delaware
corporation. The court found, however, that pursuant to the nationwide service of process
provision in 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, it was not constrained to the normal personal jurisdiction
requirement that the defendants have minimum contacts with certain districts or states. Rather,
the only question was whether the defendants had minimum contacts with the United States, and
that issue was not contested by the defendants. The court therefore held that the defendants were
subject to personal jurisdiction.
Commonwealth of Pa. Pub. Sch. Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Citigroup, Inc., 2011 WL 1937737 (E.D. Pa.
May 20, 2011).
The plaintiffs, who were investors in Citigroup securities, brought suit in state court
under state law and the Securities Act of 1933 to recover damages allegedly resulting from
Citigroup’s undisclosed exposure to mortgage-backed securities. The defendants removed,
asserting that neither plaintiff was an arm of the state for jurisdictional purposes. The plaintiffs
moved to remand, and the court granted the motion. The court determined that defendants failed
to demonstrate that the Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System (“PSERS”),
a defined benefit pension fund that manages assets for public school employees, was not an arm
of the state where: the state guaranteed PSERS’ reserve fund and its payment of interest charges,
annuities and other benefits; PSERS lacked independent corporate existence and state officials
played a significant role in its operations; and it did not act autonomously, as the state exercised
some control over its investment discretion.
Szulik v. TAG Virgin Islands, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 792 (E.D.N.C. 2011).
The plaintiffs sued the defendants, who served as the plaintiffs’ investment advisors, and
the advisors’ attorney, and sought expedited jurisdictional discovery. The court found that the
investment advisor-defendants lacked sufficiently meaningful contact with North Carolina to
O.4
O.4
370