BDO USA, P.C. v. Ankura Consulting Group, LLC, Phuoc Vin Phan, and Kevin Lavin, 3:24-cv-00179

BDO, a Virginia professional corporation providing financial advisory services, alleges that Ankura Consulting Group and its CEO, Kevin Lavin, conspired with a former BDO partner, Phuoc Vin Phan, to unlawfully recruit BDO employees and misappropriate confidential information and trade secrets from BDO’s Healthcare TAS practice.
Phan was hired by BDO in 2019 and claims he was promised conversion from Fixed Share Partner (FSP) to Variable Share Partner (VSP) within three years, which he asserts was not honored, causing significant financial loss.
While at BDO, Phan allegedly coordinated with Ankura and Lavin to solicit BDO employees and transfer confidential data to Ankura, in violation of restrictive covenants and non-solicitation agreements.
Upon learning of the mass resignation and data transfer, BDO terminated Phan and sued Ankura, Lavin, and Phan for a range of statutory and common law violations, including misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract.
Defendants Ankura and Lavin moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Virginia, and BDO moved to dismiss Phan’s counterclaim for promissory estoppel.
The court also considered a discovery dispute regarding whether discovery should proceed while jurisdictional challenges were pending.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over Ankura and Lavin	Forum selection clause binds all defendants.	Not domiciled/incorporated in Virginia; no general jurisdiction.	Court: Specific jurisdiction applies via forum selection clause; jurisdiction is proper.
Scope of Discovery while motions to dismiss pending	Discovery should proceed against all parties.	Merit-based discovery should be stayed until jurisdiction resolved.	Discovery on merits allowed against all, not just Phan.
Dismissal of Phan's promissory estoppel counterclaim	Not actionable due to existing contract and lack of fraud.	Promise was outside the scope of contract, and reliance was reasonable.	Dismissal denied; claim sufficiently pleaded to survive.
Binding of non-signatories to forum selection clause	Lavin and Ankura are closely related to dispute and foreseeably bound.	They were not parties to the agreement.	Lavin and Ankura are bound by the clause due to foreseeability and conduct.

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (explaining distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (articulating when general jurisdiction applies)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limiting general jurisdiction for corporations)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (forum selection clause relevance to personal jurisdiction)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for motions to dismiss)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility requirement in federal pleadings)
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Kurbanov, 963 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2020) (burden of proof for personal jurisdiction)
Consulting Eng'rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2009) (prima facie showing for jurisdiction)