Case 1:18-Cv-02830-JPO Document 144 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 46
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:18-cv-02830-JPO Document 144 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: 1:18-cv-02830-JPO MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED This Document Relates To All Actions MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE Case 1:18-cv-02830-JPO Document 144 Filed 09/17/18 Page 2 of 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 4 A. Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................. 4 B. Foreign Defendants ................................................................................................. 5 C. Jurisdictional Allegations........................................................................................ 6 LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................................. 7 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8 I. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO ALLEGE SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OVER THEIR MGB AUCTION CLAIMS ................................................................................................ 8 A. The Alleged Manipulation of the MGB Auctions Occurred Outside the United States by Mexican Entities ........................................................................ 10 B. Plaintiffs Do Not Allege a Substantial Connection Between the Alleged Manipulation of the MGB Auctions and the Forum ............................................. 11 1. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Concerning MGB Auctions Do Not Establish Purposeful Availment or the Causal Nexus Necessary to Support Personal Jurisdiction ................................................................11 2. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege that Foreign Defendants’ Alleged Manipulation of the MGB Auctions Was Expressly Aimed at the United States ........................................................................................17 II. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO ALLEGE SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OVER THEIR BID-ASK SPREAD CLAIMS .......................................................................................... 21 III. PLAINTIFFS MAY NOT IMPUTE OTHER DEFENDANTS’ JURISDICTIONAL CONTACTS TO FOREIGN DEFENDANTS ................................ 22 A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Regarding the Contacts of Affiliates Fail to Confer Jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants ....................................................... 23 B. Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy Allegations Fail to Establish Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants ............................................................................................... 25 1. Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy Allegations Fail to Comport with Due Process .......................................................................................................26 Case 1:18-cv-02830-JPO Document 144 Filed 09/17/18 Page 3 of 46 2. Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy Allegations Fail to Comport with the Relevant Jurisdictional Statutes .................................................................27 IV. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT RELY ON A NATIONWIDE CONTACTS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 29 V. FOREIGN DEFENDANTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO GENERAL JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................... 31 A. Foreign Defendants Are Not “At Home” in New York ........................................ 31 B. Foreign Defendants Are Not Subject to General Jurisdiction by Registering Their New York Branches ................................................................. 32 VI. CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIR PLAY, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, AND INTERNATIONAL COMITY SUPPORT DISMISSAL ................................................. 34 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 35 -ii- Case 1:18-cv-02830-JPO Document 144 Filed 09/17/18 Page 4 of 46 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases 7 W. 57th St. Realty Co. v. Citigroup, Inc. LLC, 2015 WL 1514539 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) ................................................................. passim In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 6472656 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015) ............................................................................8 In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., 90 F. Supp. 3d 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ............................................................................23, 26, 28 Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379 (1953) .................................................................................................................28 Beach v. Citigroup Alternative Investments, LLC, 2014 WL 904650 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2014) .........................................................................9, 13 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) .......................................................................................................13, 15 Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 31-32, 34 Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of America Corp., 883 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2018)............................................................................................... passim Chew v. Dietrich, 143 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 1998).........................................................................................................9 Chloe v. Queen Bee, LLC, 616 F. 3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010)....................................................................................................34 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ....................................................................................................... passim Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Medicine, 428 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2005).....................................................................................................30 Davis v. Farmers’ Co-op. Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312 (1923) ...............................................................................................................33n Expoconsul Int’l, Inc. v. A/E Systems, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 730 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).........................................................................................30n -iii- Case 1:18-cv-02830-JPO Document 144 Filed 09/17/18 Page 5 of 46 Famular v. Whirlpool Corp., 2017 WL 2470844 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2017) ...........................................................................13 In re Foreign Exch. Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., 2016 WL 1268267 (Mar. 31, 2016) ................................................................................... 33-34 FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund, L.P. v. Citibank, N.A., 2017 WL 3600425 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2017) .............................................................12, 21, 33 Gates v. Wilkinson, 2003 WL 21297296 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2003) .........................................................................30 Gucci America, Inc. v. Weizing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014)...............................................................................................29, 34 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) ...........................................................................................................23, 27 Indosuez Int’l Fin. B.V. v. Nat’l Reserve Bank, 98 N.Y.2d 238 (2002) ................................................................................................................3 Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) ......................................................................................................... 8-9, 26 King County v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 712 F. Supp. 2d 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ......................................................................................34 Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013) ...........................................................................................................32n Laydon v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFH, Ltd., 2017 WL 1113080 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017) .......................................................................17n Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., 2015 WL 1515358 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) ...............................................................4, 19, 35 Leasco v. Data Processing Equipment Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326 (2d Cir. 1972)............................................................................................. 25-27 Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001) ...............................................................................................................33n In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 6243526 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) .................................................................. passim In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 2016 WL 1558504 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2016)..........................................................................33