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 59 of 133
subject to jurisdiction “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at residents of
the forum . . . and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to’ those
activities”); see also Sole Resort, 450 F.3d 100 at 103 (requiring “some articulable nexus
between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon” for jurisdiction under CPLR
§ 302(a)(1)).
The Moving UBS Defendants argue that they are not subject to specific jurisdiction
because the Trustee’s claims seek BLMIS customer funds subsequently transferred from
Luxalpha and Groupement to the Moving UBS Defendants, such that the Trustee’s claims do not
arise out of the Moving UBS Defendants’ contacts with New York. (UBS Mot. at 29–30, 32–
34.) This argument is meritless. The Moving UBS Defendants contracted, interacted, and dealt
with BLMIS and Access in New York, as well as Groupement and Luxalpha themselves, to
create the business relationship by which UBS could operate and administer Luxalpha and
Groupement, which were fully invested in BLMIS in New York, and earn fees as a result. The
Trustee now seeks to recover these fees through subsequent transferee claims that would not
exist but for the Moving UBS Defendants’ contacts with the forum, and the Trustee’s claims
therefore arise out of or relate to these contacts. See Chais, 440 B.R. at 279–80 (exercising
jurisdiction where the defendant’s “contacts with the forum and the Trustee’s claims are
inextricably related such that but for” the defendant’s contacts with the forum, “there could be no
fraudulent transfer claims against Defendant”) 18 ; Maxam, 460 B.R. at 118 (finding that Trustee’s
claims “arise out of or relate to” contacts with the United States, since without the subsequent
18 The Court in Chais applied the “but for” test for determining whether the Trustee’s claims in that action were
sufficiently related to the contacts with the forum, but noted that certain courts have utilized a “proximate cause” test
or another relatedness test that is dependent on the “overall picture” of the defendant’s contacts. Chais, 440 B.R.
280 at n.3. Given the Moving UBS Defendants’ critical role in establishing Luxalpha, and operating Luxalpha and
Groupement, the Trustee’s causes of action are so closely related to the contacts at issue that jurisdiction is proper
under either of these formulations of the relatedness test.
39