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 51 of 133
investments in New York with Madoff, who was the “exclusive trader” and bore “responsibility”
for the funds’ investments. (Id. at 15.)
g. UBS SA Earned Substantial Fees as a Result of Its Direction of
Investments to New York Through Luxalpha and Groupement
As a result of its direction of investments to BLMIS through Luxalpha and Groupement,
UBS SA earned substantial fees, further underscoring the contacts between UBS SA and the
forum that give rise to jurisdiction. UBS SA earned fees from Luxalpha in connection with its
purported roles as Luxalpha’s custodian and Luxalpha’s portfolio manager from February 2004
to August 2006. (See Pergament Decl. Exs. 35 at App’x 1; 36 at 8; 23 at 5 & App’x III.) These
fees were based on the assets under management with BLMIS. (Id.) Upon information and
belief, UBS SA was paid $10,539,560 in fees for “recordkeeping and jurisdiction purposes,”
$14,464,523 in “management fees” for the period February 2004 until August 2006, and
$13,470,388 in “performance fees” for the period February 2004 until August 2006 relating to
Luxalpha. (Am. Compl. 187–189.) UBS SA also earned fees from Groupement in
connection with its role as prime bank. (Pergament Decl. Ex. 34 at 11.) The Trustee’s suit seeks
to recover these fees subsequently transferred to UBS SA and plainly arises out of or relates to
the contacts between UBS SA and the forum which allowed UBS SA to earn such fees. See
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472–73 (1985); see also Jesup, Josephthal & Co.
v. Piguet & Cie, No. 90 Civ. 6544 (WK), 1991 WL 168053, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 1991)
(subjecting a Swiss private bank to jurisdiction for making investments in the forum on behalf of
its clients because, by providing such services to its clients, the bank “act[ed] to inure its own
benefit”).
31