Filed March 8, 2010
B-1-3, C. Consequently, the fraud sufficiently affected U.S. investors as to give rise to subject matter jurisdiction over their claims, regardless of where they purchased Fortis securities. See Minorco, Case 1:08-cv-09060-DC Document 47 Filed 03/08/2010 Page 16 of 22 - 11 - 871 F.2d at 262 (finding jurisdiction where “American residents representing 2.5% of Gold Fields’ [a British company] shareholders owned 5.
Filed March 18, 2009
See, e.g., Travis v. Anthes Imperial, Ltd., 473 F.2d 515, 523 (8th Cir. 1973). Since Schoenbaum, the Second Circuit has applied the “effects” test even in instances where the company at issue did not register its 26 See also Consolidated Gold Fields PLC, 871 F.2d at 262 (reversing the District Court’s finding that, under the “effects” test, it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of U.S. resident shareholders who purchased their shares abroad); In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., No. 04 Civ. 0030, 2008 WL 3895539, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008) (maintaining jurisdiction over U.S. resident plaintiffs who purchased shares of a foreign company on a foreign exchange); In re SCOR Holding AG Litigation, 537 F. Supp.2d 556, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Assuming . . . the purchase of . . . shares by U.S. residents on [a foreign exchange] may be viewed as [a] predominantly foreign securities transaction[], it is not contested here that [under the effects test] this Court has subject matter jurisdiction . . . without consideration of the conduct test.”)
Filed April 16, 2010
Id. at *10 (holding that the allegations “satisfie[d] the ‘effects’ test” and citing Consolidated Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252, 262 (2d Cir. 1989)). The result should be the same here.
Filed January 2, 2009
Gold Fields, PLC v. Anglo Am. Corp. of S. Africa Ltd., 698 F. Supp. 487, 494 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. Conol. Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1989). 11 Because there is no allegation that any Form F-6EF is misleading, its filing would afford no basis for jurisdiction even if it were deemed “doing business” in the United States.
Filed June 2, 2015
Document 194 Filed 06/02/15 Page 5 of 75 v Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), 858 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................56 Consol. Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1989).....................................................................................................34 Cont’l Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (1962) ...................................................................................................................5 Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs. v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................30 Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012) .......................................................................................49 In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 4379112 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2014) ...............................................................10, 49, 52 In re Crude Oil Commodity Futures Litig., 913 F. Supp. 2d 41 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Filed November 5, 2012
mestic securities trades;11 (iii) in a case where the corpus of the violation is the corruption of a foreign government official; and (iv) who, by the FCPA's express terms, must commit an act in furtherance of that conduct corruptly through a means of United States interstate commerce in order to be liable, see 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1(a); can be said to have reasonably foreseen that their wholly foreign conduct would cause them to be haled into a federal courtroom in the United States. See Laborers Local 17, 26 F. Supp. 2d at 10 Accord Pieczenik v. Cambridge Antibody Tech. Grp., No. 03 Civ. 6336, 2004 WL 527045, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2004) ("[Defendant’s] designation of the Bank of New York as a depository for its ADRs cannot support a finding of general jurisdiction under New York law."); Consolidated Gold Fields, PLC v. Anglo Am. Corp. of S. Africa Ltd., 698 F. Supp. 487, 494 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), rev'd in part on other grounds, 871 F.2d 252 (1989) (general personal jurisdiction did not exist over a Luxembourg corporation that had unsponsored ADRs traded in the United States, but specific personal jurisdiction did exist, due to the defendant corporation’s specific “courtship” of a United States company). 11 See Compl. ¶ 37 (the Company allegedly estimated how it would profit from benefits sought in Macedonia). Case 1:11-cv-09645-RJS Document 37 Filed 11/05/12 Page 24 of 43 15 598; see also Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2883 (even "when a statute provides for some extraterritorial application, the presumption against extraterritoriality operates to limit that provision to its terms"); accord Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S.102, 114 (1987) (courts must give significant weight to "unique burdens" associated with defending a matter in a foreign legal system).
Filed January 26, 2012
Canso\. Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, SA, 871 F.2d 252,257 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing Cargill, 479 U.S. at lll). Defendants insist that Animal Science has suffered no actual or prospective injury because Animal Science "makes money off each of its purchases and resales of vitamin C" and has continued to make rosy predictions about the company's future growth.
Filed April 27, 2010
at 561 n.6 (“The required effect on United States investors can be found even when there are only a ‘relatively small number’ of American investors.” (quoting Consol. Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252, 262 (2d Cir.1989))).9 Judge Castel’s decision in City of Edinburgh Council v. Vodafone Group Pub. Ltd.