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 74 of 133
specific jurisdiction over a corporate officer where the “Adversary Proceeding arises out of [the
officer’s] duties as a corporate officer and his corresponding contacts with the United States.”
Id.; see also In re Royal Ahold, 351 F. Supp. 2d at 351 (“an individual defendant’s actions
directed at the forum, even if those acts were done in that defendant’s corporate capacity” are
relevant to jurisdiction); Torco Oil Co. v. Innovative Thermal Corp., 730 F. Supp. 126, 134 n.18
(N.D. Ill. 1989) (jurisdiction permissible over foreign corporate officers where “defendants are
‘primary participants in an alleged wrongdoing intentionally directed at’ a resident of the forum
state”) (quoting Calder, 465 U.S. at 790). As demonstrated above, each of the Moving Luxalpha
Director Defendants did in fact direct his actions at the United States, through his dominion and
control of an investment fund entirely invested in New York.
8. Each of the Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants Is Subject to
Jurisdiction Because Luxalpha Transacted Business in New York as
His Agent
Additionally, each of the Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants is subject to jurisdiction
under CPLR 302(a)(1) because Luxalpha transacted business in New York as his agent. The
requisite agency test is easily satisfied because Luxalpha transacted business in New York for the
benefit of, and with the knowledge and consent of, the Moving Luxalpha Director Defendants,
who clearly exercised more than “some control” over the fund. See Kreutter, 522 N.E.2d at 44;
see also Retail Software, 854 F.2d at 21-22 (asserting jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) over
two foreign individuals who operated company that sold franchises in New York); In re
Sumitomo Copper Litig., 120 F. Supp. 2d at 337 (asserting jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1)
over two Monaco residents who operated company that traded copper in New York).
First, Luxalpha held a customer account with BLMIS in New York, and moved more
than a billion dollars into BLMIS in New York, thus transacting business and engaging in
“purposeful activities” in this forum. (Am. Compl. 262 & Exs. A & B.) Next, each of the
54