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 67 of 133
corporation.”). In addition to approving the establishment of Luxalpha and delegation of
custodial authority to New York, UBS AG also served as Luxalpha’s co-sponsor, and provided
the use of its correspondent bank account in the United States to UBS SA. The jurisdictional
contacts between UBS AG and the forum should be ascribed to the Moving UBS Defendants as
they are each mere departments of their parent. 22
7. The Court Has Jurisdiction over Each of the Moving Luxalpha
Director Defendants Because Each Directed Investment Activity to
New York
Specific jurisdiction exists over each of the Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants
because each of them has the minimum contacts with the forum required for the Court to
exercise personal jurisdiction. Each of the Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants was involved
in the major decisions and investment activities that were purposely directed to BLMIS in New
York. Even if “none of them has ever met or communicated with Madoff . . . in connection with
any Luxalpha business” (UBS Mot. at 22–23,) these defendants authorized and supervised
Luxalpha’s targeted direction of funds to BLMIS in New York, actively concealed Madoff’s role
as custodian and asset manager from investors, and generated millions in fees for UBS SA,
where each was a high-ranking principal. The Moving Luxalpha Director Defendant also served
on Luxalpha’s board with Littaye, who had close ties with Madoff, and used this relationship and
22 The Moving UBS Defendants rely heavily on Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. K-Line Am., Inc., No. 06 Civ. 0615
(BSJ), 2007 WL 1732435 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) to argue that UBS AG’s jurisdictional contacts cannot be
imputed to them. (UBS Mot. at 36.) In K-Line, the court declined to find a mere department relationship where the
plaintiff failed to establish common ownership among the entities, there was no interference in the selection or
assignment of personnel, and where it was not clear that the parent company was even present in New York. 2007
WL 1732435, at *11. In contrast, each of these factors is satisfied here. The Moving UBS Defendants’ references
to Greatship (India) Ltd. v. Marine Logistics Solutions (Marsol) LLC, No. 11 Civ. 420 (RJH), 2012 WL 204102
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2012) and Fagan v. Austria, No. 08 Civ. 6715 (LTS) (JCF), 2011 WL 1197677, at *20 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 25, 2011) are similarly unavailing. (UBS Mot. at 36.) Greatship concerned a foreign plaintiff’s efforts to
enforce a foreign judgment against a foreign defendant whose parent entity was not even a registered company in
New York, and the claims in Fagan revolved around foreign defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct that had
exclusively occurred in Austria. Further, in both Fagan and Greatship, the domestic parent company at issue was in
no way connected with the actions that gave rise to the plaintiffs’ claims, nor was there any assertion of control by
the parent over the subsidiary or any common employees between them.
47