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 24 of 133
exercise jurisdiction over every one of the Moving Access Defendants based on these contacts
with New York.
The Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants and Defendant Delandmeter are also subject
to jurisdiction. As detailed below in discussing each individual defendant, the Moving Luxalpha
Director Defendants and Delandmeter took a number of actions that demonstrate they were
primary actors with respect to Luxalpha’s investments with BLMIS. These actions included
opening the account at BLMIS, approving the delegation of custodial and asset management
authority to BLMIS, and authorizing prospectuses issued to investors, investment reports, and
payments from the fund to other Defendants, among many other actions. In addition to being a
Luxalpha director, Delandmeter also met with Madoff in New York and participated in quarterly
Access meetings that were held in New York regarding the investments at BLMIS, and was
involved in every major decision that was made with respect to Luxalpha. These numerous,
significant contacts, which give rise to the Trustee’s claims, render the Moving Luxalpha
Director Defendants and Delandmeter subject to jurisdiction.
On top of the Moving UBS Defendants’ and Moving Access Defendants’ numerous
contacts with New York, each is also properly before this Court based on “mere department” or
agency theories of jurisdiction, or, in many instances, both jurisdictional bases. The Moving
UBS Defendants each functioned as mere departments of Defendant UBS AG, which has not
contested jurisdiction and is unquestionably present in the United States. UBS AG controlled the
Moving UBS Defendants as parts of and in furtherance of UBS AG’s worldwide, intercompany
business groups such that the contacts of UBS AG can be fairly imputed to the Moving UBS
Defendants. Similarly, the Moving Access Defendants were mere departments of Access’s New
4