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 32 of 133 set forth in the Amended Complaint. [S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 28.] After briefing of the motions to dismiss was completed, on November 1, 2011 the District Court dismissed the common law claims for lack of standing, and ordered the remaining claims to be returned to this Court for further proceedings. Picard v. UBS AG (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 460 B.R. 84 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). The Trustee appealed the District Court’s dismissal of his common law claims, which is currently pending before the Second Circuit. See id., appeal docketed, No. 11-5051 (2d Cir. Dec. 7, 2011). The Trustee’s bankruptcy law claims, including initial transfer claims against Luxalpha and Groupement and subsequent transfer claims against the other Defendants, are not affected by the District Court’s November 1, 2011 order that is now on appeal. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW ARGUMENT A plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction over a defendant to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). See Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 242 (2d Cir. 2007); Hoffritz for Cutlery Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd., 763 F.2d 55, 57 (2d Cir. 1985). Where, as here, no evidentiary hearing has been held, the Court must construe all inferences in the Trustee’s favor. See DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2001). Factual allegations contained in the complaint must be accepted as true for purposes of the motion except for unsupported allegations that are refuted by “direct, highly specific, testimonial evidence” presented by the defendant and not countered by the plaintiff. See Schenker v. Assicurazioni Genereali S.p.A., Consol., No. 98 Civ. 9186 (MBM), 2002 WL 1560788, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2002). Here, no such affidavits have been submitted. Rather, as discussed infra., the affidavits contain little more than conclusory, self-serving statements contradicted by the Amended Complaint and the documents referenced herein. 12
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document Pg 33 of 133 In addition to the complaint, a plaintiff may rely on affidavits and supporting materials, in addition to pleadings, to meet its burden of a prima facie showing. See Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Inst., Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175, 178 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (“[A]ll pertinent documentation submitted by the parties may be considered in deciding the motion.”); In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 262 F. Supp. 2d 17, 21 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir. 1981)). “Such pleadings and affidavits must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and all doubts must be resolved in plaintiffs’ favor.” In re Tamoxifen, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 21 (citing Hoffritz, 763 F.2d at 57.). 6 II. STANDARD FOR DETERMINING PERSONAL JURISDICTION Under Rule 7004(f) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, a court shall have personal jurisdiction over a defendant provided that “the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(f) (2010); see also GMAM Inv. Funds Trust I v. Globo Comunicações e Participações S.A. (In re Globo Comunicações e Participações S.A.), 317 B.R. 235, 251 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004). This analysis entails a two-step inquiry: First, the court must establish that the defendant has sufficient “contacts with the forum state to justify the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction.” Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 164 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (19<strong>45</strong>)). Rule 7004(f) requires “minimum contacts” with the United States, rather than with any particular state. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Paques, Inc. (In re Paques, Inc.), 277 B.R. 615, 633 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000); see also Picard v. Chais (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 6 When deciding a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, a “court may consider affidavits and documents submitted by the parties without converting the motion into one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” ESI, Inc. v. Coastal Corp., 61 F. Supp. 2d 35, 50 n.54 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 13
Page 1 and 2: 10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 31: 10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 83 and 84:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 85 and 86:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 87 and 88:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 89 and 90:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 91 and 92:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 93 and 94:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 95 and 96:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 97 and 98:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 99 and 100:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 101 and 102:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 103 and 104:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 105 and 106:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 107 and 108:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 109 and 110:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 111 and 112:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 113 and 114:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 115 and 116:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 117 and 118:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 119 and 120:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 121 and 122:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 123 and 124:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 125 and 126:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 127 and 128:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 129 and 130:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 131 and 132:
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?