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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document Pg 109 of 133 interest in applying the fraudulent transfer and preference provisions of its Bankruptcy Code since the Trustee’s claims arise under it, and Defendants’ transfers have allegedly deprived United States’ creditors of distributions to which they are entitled in the BLMIS liquidation.” (citing U.S. Lines, Inc. v. GAC Marine Fuels Ltd. (In re McLean Indus. Inc.), 68 B.R. 690, 699 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986))); Cohmad, 418 B.R. at 81–82. Here, the Trustee’s surviving claims arise under the Bankruptcy Code, thereby bolstering this Court’s interest in retaining jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants. Balancing all relevant interests, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Moving UBS Defendants and the Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants comports with the “reasonableness” embodied in “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” See Chais, 440 at 278 (quoting Asahi, 480 U.S. at 113). The Moving Defendants’ conclusory arguments and “evidence” fall far short of the “direct, highly specific, testimonial evidence” necessary to rebut the Trustee’s allegations establishing the reasonableness of jurisdiction. See Schenker, 2002 WL 1560788, at *3. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint —as bolstered by the specific evidence presented in this consolidated opposition and accompanying declaration—demonstrate that each of the Moving Defendants maintained minimum contacts with the forum that subject them to jurisdiction, notwithstanding their generalized declarations to the contrary. The Moving Defendants are unable to show that the balance of interests would weigh against the exercise of personal jurisdiction by this Court. VI. JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE In the event that this Court does not find that the Trustee has successfully alleged personal jurisdiction over any of the Moving Defendants, discovery should be permitted on this limited issue. See APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that “a court should 89
Page 1 and 2:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 3 and 4:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 5 and 6:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 7 and 8:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 9 and 10:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 11 and 12:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 13 and 14:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 15 and 16:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 17 and 18:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 19 and 20:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 21 and 22:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 23 and 24:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 25 and 26:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 27 and 28:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 29 and 30:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 31 and 32:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 33 and 34:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 35 and 36:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 37 and 38:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 39 and 40:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 41 and 42:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 43 and 44:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 45 and 46:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 47 and 48:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 49 and 50:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 51 and 52:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 53 and 54:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 55 and 56:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 57 and 58: 10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 107: 10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 133: 10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?