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 5 of 133
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
- ii -
Page
c. UBS SA Contracted with BLMIS and AIA LLC in
New York Regarding Luxalpha’s Portfolio
Management ..................................................................... 27
d. UBS SA Regularly Moved Luxalpha Investor
Money Into and Out of BLMIS in New York
Through its United States Bank Account......................... 28
e. UBS SA Personnel Regularly Communicated with
BLMIS Employees in New York Regarding
Luxalpha .......................................................................... 29
f. UBS SA Served as the Prime Bank for Groupement
with Respect to BLMIS, and Directed Investment
Activity to New York....................................................... 30
g. UBS SA Earned Substantial Fees as a Result of Its
Direction of Investments to New York Through
Luxalpha and Groupement ............................................... 31
h. UBS SA Submitted a Customer Claim to the
Trustee on Behalf of Luxalpha ........................................ 32
2. UBSFSL Is Subject to the Court’s Jurisdiction Because it
Administered Luxalpha and Groupement, Directing
Investments to BLMIS in New York ........................................... 32
3. UBS SA and UBSFSL Are Subject to Jurisdiction Because
Luxalpha Acted in New York as Their Agent ............................. 34
4. UBSTPM is Subject to Jurisdiction Through Its Role as
Luxalpha’s Management Company, and Because UBS SA
Acted as Its Agent ........................................................................ 36
5. The Trustee’s Claims Against UBS SA, UBSFSL, and
UBSTPM Arise out of Their Contacts with New York ............... 38
6. UBS SA, UBSFSL, and UBSTPM Are Mere Departments
of UBS AG and Therefore Subject to the Court’s General
Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 40
7. The Court Has Jurisdiction over Each of the Moving
Luxalpha Director Defendants Because Each Directed
Investment Activity to New York ................................................ 47
8. Each of the Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants Is
Subject to Jurisdiction Because Luxalpha Transacted
Business in New York as His Agent ............................................ 54
C. The Court has Jurisdiction Over the Moving Access Defendants
and Delandmeter ...................................................................................... 57