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 108 of 133
The Second Circuit has found the exercise of personal jurisdiction to be reasonable when
a defendant causes consequences in the forum state. SEC v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028, 1033
(2d Cir. 1990); see also SEC v. Gonzalez de Castilla, No. 01 Civ. 3999, 2001 WL 940560, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2001); Chais, 440 B.R. at 281. By funneling money into and withdrawing
money from BLMIS, playing supporting roles in facilitating the investments with BLMIS, and
benefitting from the relationship with BLMIS by collecting enormous fees, each of the Moving
Defendants are inextricably linked to Madoff’s scheme and the losses suffered by thousands of
investors in the United States.
Because the liquidation of BLMIS concerns a failed, federally regulated New York
broker-dealer and is proceeding in New York, both New York and the United States have a
strong interest in exercising personal jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants. The Trustee is
overseeing hundreds of lawsuits before this Court. His actions involve billions of dollars in
claims similar to, and related to, the claims brought here against the Moving Defendants. This
Court has already held that “the most efficient resolution of the controversy would be in the
United States, where the inextricably-related BLMIS litigation is ongoing.” Maxam, 460 B.R. at
119; also Nordberg v. Granfinanciera, S.A. (In re Chase & Sanborn Corp.), 835 F.2d 1341, 1347
(11th Cir. 1988) (finding personal jurisdiction reasonable where the bankruptcy trustee already
had several other related actions pending in the forum), rev’d on other grounds, 492 U.S. 33
(1989). In light of the multitude of “inextricably-related” proceedings arising from Madoff’s
Ponzi scheme, the Court’s interests in maintaining a cohesive litigation structure far outweigh the
minimal inconvenience imposed on the Moving Defendants by being forced to litigate here.
Finally, the United States has a significant interest in adjudicating claims that arise under
the United States Bankruptcy Code. Maxam, 460 B.R. at 119 (“[T]he United States has a strong
88