24.12.2012 Views

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document<br />

Pg 52 of 133<br />

h. UBS SA Submitted a Customer Claim to the Trustee on Behalf<br />

of Luxalpha<br />

On March 2, 2009, UBS SA filed a customer claim in the BLMIS liquidation, Claim No.<br />

005025, on behalf of Luxalpha, which was signed by UBS SA employees Marcel Bruhwiler and<br />

Ueli Schlaepfer. (Pergament Decl. Ex. 22 at 4.) This claim lists “UBS (Luxembourg) S.A. on<br />

behalf of LUXALPHA Sicav” as the Customer, and provides UBS SA’s Taxpayer Identification<br />

Number. (Id. at 1.) The submission of this claim on Luxalpha’s behalf in <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> is yet<br />

another UBS SA contact with the forum and further evidence the UBS SA has availed itself of<br />

the protections of U.S. law. 16<br />

2. UBSFSL Is Subject to the Court’s Jurisdiction Because it<br />

Administered Luxalpha and Groupement, Directing Investments to<br />

BLMIS in <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong><br />

UBSFSL’s contention that its “jurisdictionally relevant business activities . . . had<br />

virtually no connection to the United States” (UBS Mot. at 29) rings hollow. UBSFSL served as<br />

administrator of Luxalpha and Groupement (see Boulat Decl. 9, 12 [Bankr. S.D.N.Y. ECF<br />

No. 111]) and took steps to direct these funds’ investments to BLMIS in <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong>, which<br />

actions subject UBSFSL to the specific jurisdiction of the Court. See Maxam, 460 B.R. at 117<br />

(jurisdiction found as a result of defendants’ “directing investments to the United States”);<br />

Cromer, 137 F. Supp. 2d at 476-77 (finding that foreign administrator of a fund was subject to<br />

jurisdiction given “the quality and nature of [its] relationship with the United States, arising out<br />

of [its] work for the Fund” and because it “received from the United States all of the information<br />

from which it prepared the statements it disseminated as Fund administrators”).<br />

16 The Trustee does not contend that UBS SA submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Court by filing the claim on<br />

Luxalpha’s behalf, but rather that the preparation and submission of the claim by UBS SA constitutes yet another<br />

contact with the forum.<br />

32

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!