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 25 of 133
York office, without which the Moving Access Defendants would have had no purpose and
would not have been able to exist.
Luxalpha was also the agent for UBS SA and UBSFSL. Luxalpha, which had no
employees of its own, was controlled by UBS SA employees for the benefit of UBS SA and was
dependent on UBS SA and UBSFSL to perform the work for the fund. Under these
circumstances, Luxalpha’s jurisdictional contacts with New York may be imputed to UBS SA
and UBSFSL. With regard to the Moving Access Defendants, the jurisdictional contacts of
Access’s New York office can be imputed to them as their agent because Access’s New York
office performed many of the Moving Access Defendants’ essential functions, and in many
instances provided their only employees.
There are multiple valid bases for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over every
one of the Moving Defendants. It would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice to allow the Moving Defendants to escape having to account in the United States for their
purposeful actions directed here. The suggestion, put forward by the liquidators of Luxalpha,
that this action should also be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens is equally without
merit. It cannot be said that the Trustee’s motivations for filing suit here were anything but bona
fide. The United States has the paramount interest in the determining the claims at issue, and
Luxembourg is not an adequate alternative forum. For all of these reasons, the motions of the
Moving Defendants must be denied and the Trustee’s claims against them and the other
Defendants in this action should be allowed to proceed. In the alternative, the Court should
allow the Trustee to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery.
5