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 39 of 133
Luxalpha � Consented to personal jurisdiction by filing customer claims
� Maintained contacts with New York giving rise to specific jurisdiction
UBS SA and
UBSFSL
� Waived right to contest jurisdiction through participation in this proceeding
� Maintained contacts with New York giving rise to specific jurisdiction
� Used Luxalpha as their agent in New York
� Were mere departments of UBS AG
� Waived right to contest jurisdiction through participation in this proceeding
UBSTPM � Maintained contacts with New York giving rise to specific jurisdiction
� Used UBS SA as its agent in New York
� Was a mere department of UBS AG
Hondequin,
Kranz, Egger,
and Schroeter
AIA Europe,
AIA Ltd., AP
(Lux), and AP
(Suisse)
AML (f/k/a
AIA (Lux))
� Waived right to contest jurisdiction through participation in this proceeding
� Maintained contacts with New York giving rise to specific jurisdiction
� Used Luxalpha as their agent in New York
� Waived right to contest jurisdiction through participation in this proceeding
� Maintained contacts with New York giving rise to specific jurisdiction
� Used Access’s New York office as their agent in New York
� Were mere departments of Access’s New York office
� Waived right to contest jurisdiction through participation in this proceeding
� Maintained contacts with New York giving rise to specific jurisdiction
� Used Access’s New York office as its agent in New York
� Was a mere department of Access’s New York office
� Filed suit against the Trustee abroad, subjecting it to jurisdiction in the U.S.
� Waived right to contest jurisdiction through participation in this proceeding
Delandmeter � Maintained contacts with New York giving rise to specific jurisdiction
� Used Luxalpha as his agent in New York
� Filed suit against the Trustee abroad, subjecting it to jurisdiction in the U.S.
� Waived right to contest jurisdiction through participation in this proceeding
A. The Court Has Personal Jurisdiction over Luxalpha
1. Luxalpha Consented to the Court’s Jurisdiction by Filing Customer
Claims
The Court’s personal jurisdiction inquiry need go no further than the claims filed by
Luxalpha. It is black-letter law that “[i]n a bankruptcy case, personal jurisdiction over a foreign
defendant exists when a defendant consents to jurisdiction by filing a proof of claim.” 9 Aurora
Mgmt. Partners, Inc. v. GC Fin. Servs., Inc. (In re Protected Vehicles, Inc.), 429 B.R. 856, 861
9 This principle applies equally to SIPA actions. Picard v. Stahl (In re Bernard L. Madoff), 443 B.R. 295, 310
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“A customer claim filed in a SIPA action is equivalent to a proof of claim filed in a typical
bankruptcy proceeding for purposes of submission to jurisdiction.” (citing Keller v. Blinder (In re Blinder Robinson
& Co., Inc.), 135 B.R. 892, 896–97 (D. Col. 1991))).
19