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 7 of 133
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
- iv -
Page
IV. ALL MOVING DEFENDANTS WAIVED PERSONAL JURISDICTION
DEFENSES BY PARTICIPATING IN THE INSTANT AND RELATED
PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................. 83
V. ALL MOVING DEFENDANTS FAIL TO SHOW THAT THE
EXERCISE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WOULD BE
UNREASONABLE ............................................................................................. 86
VI. JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE
ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 89
A. Jurisdictional Discovery Is Warranted to Fully Reveal the Nature
of the Moving UBS Defendants’ Contacts with This Forum .................. 91
B. Jurisdictional Discovery Is Warranted to Explore the Contacts that
the Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants Have with This Forum ........ 92
C. Jurisdictional Discovery Is Warranted to Explore the
Interconnected Contacts Between the Moving Access Defendants,
the Other Access Entities, and This Forum ............................................. 93
D. Jurisdictional Discovery Is Warranted to Confirm the Numerous
Contacts That Delandmeter Had with This Forum .................................. 94
VII. THE COURT SHOULD NOT DISMISS THIS ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS ........................................ 95
A. The Trustee’s Choice of a United States Forum Deserves
Significant Deference............................................................................... 96
B. Luxalpha Has Not Met Its Burden to Show that Luxembourg Is an
Adequate Alternative Forum.................................................................... 98
C. Luxalpha Has Not Met Its Burden to Show that the Private and
Public Interest Factors Weigh Heavily in Favor of Dismissal ............... 100
1. Luxalpha Has Not Shown that the Private Interest Factors
Favor Litigation in Luxembourg ................................................ 101
a. Litigation in the United States Will Involve Greater
Access to Evidence and Lower Costs ............................ 102
(1) Witnesses ........................................................... 102
(2) Documents ......................................................... 103
b. Litigation in Luxembourg Would Cause
Inefficiency and Unnecessary Delay ............................. 105
2. Luxalpha Has Not Shown that the Public Interest Factors
Favor Litigation in Luxembourg ................................................ 106