No. 16-____ In the Supreme Court of the United States NAUTIC MANAGEMENT VI, L.P., NAUTIC PARTNERS VI, L.P., RELIANT SPLITTER, L.P., and KENNEDY PLAZA PARTNERS VI, L.P., Petitioners, v. CORNERSTONE HEALTHCARE GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI JOHN F. HARTMANN PATRICK F. PHILBIN KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Counsel of Record 300 N. LaSalle St. JOHN S. MORAN Chicago, IL 60654 PATRICK BROWN (312) 862-2000 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 879-5000
[email protected] October 17, 2016 i QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioners are three private equity funds and their common general partner, all of which are Delaware limited partnerships with their principal places of business in Rhode Island. Petitioners formed subsidiary corporate entities under Delaware law to purchase a hospital chain in Texas. Respondent then sued petitioners in Texas state court claiming, inter alia, tortious interference with respondent’s ability to purchase the same chain of hospitals. Reversing two separate panels of the Texas Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Texas held that petitioners had established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to sustain personal jurisdiction. The court acknowledged that respondents had waived any argument for attributing the contacts of the subsidiary that purchased the Texas hospitals to petitioners under an alter ego or agency theory. Instead, the court held that petitioners had created minimum contacts with Texas because, by forming a subsidiary to purchase assets in Texas, they had “targeted Texas assets in which to invest and sought to profit from that investment.” App.