BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document
Pg 101 of 133
demonstrate only that the entities had common ownership. (Access Mot. at 23-24.) To the
contrary, and as detailed above, each element of the mere department test is satisfied with regard
to the relationship between Access’s New York office and each of the Moving Access
Defendants. The Moving Access Defendants also fail to recognize that the jurisdictional
contacts of Access’s New York office can be imputed to them on an agency theory. Instead,
they insist the Trustee must establish that the Moving Access Defendants were alter egos of the
New York office. (See Access Mot. 21–23.) But the Trustee’s position is that the Moving
Access Defendants are subject to jurisdiction based upon their direct contacts with the forum, as
well as their agency and mere department relationships with Access’s New York office.
11. AML and Delandmeter Are Subject to Jurisdiction for the Additional
Reason that They Have Filed Suit Against the Trustee in Luxembourg
This Court has jurisdiction over AML and Delandmeter for the additional reason that
they filed an action in the District Court of Luxembourg (the “Luxalpha Third Party Writ”)
against the Trustee as the representative of BLMIS and have sought recovery from the BLMIS
estate related to Luxalpha’s investments in BLMIS. Bankruptcy courts have exercised
jurisdiction over foreign defendants solely on the basis that an action they have taken abroad has
“a substantial, direct and foreseeable effect on the administration of [the bankruptcy] estate that
11 U.S.C. § 362(a) was designed to prevent.” LaMonica v. North of England Protecting and
Indem. Assoc. Ltd., (In re Probulk Inc.), 407 B.R. 56, 63–64 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The filing of a
foreign action against a debtor or a debtor’s property that is subject to a United States bankruptcy
proceeding subjects that plaintiff to this Court’s jurisdiction because it affects “the very ability of
the bankruptcy court to govern such a liquidation and to fairly distribute same and is tampering
with the exclusive jurisdiction over all such property afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e).” Id.
(citations omitted); see also Fox v. Picard (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC), No. 10 Civ.
81