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 99 of 133
amounts of transfers he appears to have received from the fund. 41 (See Pergament Decl. Ex. 85
at 3.)
Notwithstanding Delandmeter’s multiple contacts with the forum, he argues that he is not
subject to this Court’s jurisdiction because “according to Luxembourg law, a legal advisor such
as Delandmeter often sits on the board of directors, but he is legally precluded from engaging in
the day to day business of the enterprise.” (Delandmeter Mot. at 4.) Regardless of Luxembourg
law on legal advisors, it is clear from the evidence that Delandmeter did in fact engage in the
day-to-day business of Luxalpha, as well as the Access entities on whose boards he served.
Likewise, Delandmeter’s consistent participation in the Quarterly Strategic Meetings in New
York and his meeting with Madoff in New York were not isolated, casual encounters.
Delandmeter had a vested interest in Luxalpha’s and Access’s successes given his role as a
director of Luxalpha, AIA Inc., and several of the other Access entities. These contacts, which
were essential to the continuance of Access and Luxalpha’s business relationship with BLMIS,
demonstrate Delandmeter’s purposeful direction of investment activity to New York and subject
Delandmeter to the Court’s jurisdiction.
10. The Moving Access Defendants and Delandmeter’s Arguments to the
Contrary Mischaracterize the Appropriate Legal Standards and
Misstate the Facts
In an effort to avoid the Court’s jurisdiction, the Moving Access Defendants and
Delandmeter argue that they cannot be haled into court in the United States as a result of their
41 Jurisdiction over Delandmeter is also proper under CPLR § 302(a)(1), because Luxalpha transacted business in
New York as his agent. Jurisdiction through agency is properly found if the corporate entity “engaged in purposeful
activities with this State in relation to [the] transaction for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of the
[individual] and…[the individual] exercised some control over [the corporate entity] in the matter.” Kreutter, 522
N.E.2d at 44; see also In re Sumitomo Copper Litig., 120 F. Supp. 2d at 337. Luxalpha transacted business in New
York with the knowledge and consent, and for the benefit of Delandmeter, who was undoubtedly well compensated
for his role as Luxalpha’s director and legal advisor. (See Pergament Decl. Ex. 85 at 3.) Further, Delandmeter
clearly exercised more than “some control” over Luxalpha—indeed, he was a primary actor with respect to
Luxalpha and its contacts with BLMIS. See Retail Software, 854 F.2d at 22.
79