Christoph Henkel v. Emjo Investments, Ltd. and H.J. Von Der Goltz
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9058
Tex. App.2015Background
- NC12, Inc. (Nevada) and its predecessor TSI registered to do business and headquartered in Houston; both raised investor funds to develop a coal-gasification technology.
- Christoph Henkel served on NC12’s board; Michael Sydow (a Texas resident) was NC12’s president/CEO and a central figure in alleged misconduct.
- Plaintiffs Emjo Investments and H.J. von der Goltz allege Sydow, Henkel, and others conspired to commit fraud and misappropriate investor funds; some claims were remanded from federal bankruptcy proceedings after NC12’s bankruptcy.
- Evidence presented against Henkel included: his board membership, his receipt of Texas-company shares, filings in related Texas litigation/bankruptcy, and an affidavit that Henkel traveled to Houston twice (2008–2010) for meetings with Sydow.
- Henkel filed a special appearance asserting lack of minimum contacts and that jurisdiction would offend fair play and substantial justice; the trial court denied the special appearance and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Henkel | Henkel purposefully availed himself of Texas by serving on NC12’s board, attending meetings in Houston, and conspiring with a Texas resident to defraud investors in a Texas-based company | Henkel lacked sufficient contacts with Texas (denied visits, denied board service, no Texas-related misrepresentations by him) | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists based on board service, Houston meetings, and alleged conspiracy ties to Texas; Henkel failed to negate jurisdictional allegations |
| Whether contacts were sufficiently related to plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim | The alleged conspiracy with Sydow (a Texas resident) to defraud investors in a Texas company creates a nexus to Texas | Meetings alone (without proof of subject matter) do not prove conspiratorial acts tied to Texas | Court: Substance of meetings not required; contacts with Texas plus conspiracy allegations establish the needed nexus |
| Whether due process forbids exercise of jurisdiction (fair play & substantial justice) | Plaintiffs: Texas has strong interest (company headquartered there, bankruptcy filed there) and forum is convenient; defendant has U.S. business ties | Henkel: Plaintiff’s suit imposes undue burden given his residence in London/Austria and limited travel to Texas | Court: Fairness factors favor Texas—Henkel’s U.S. business activities, related litigation in Texas, and forum interest support jurisdiction |
| Whether general jurisdiction applies | N/A (plaintiffs did not assert Henkel domiciled or ‘at home’ in Texas) | Henkel not domiciled in Texas | Court: Analysis limited to specific jurisdiction; general jurisdiction not found |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (meetings in forum can support specific jurisdiction for conspiracy-related claims)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (plaintiff bears pleading burden for long-arm statute; defendant must negate allegations)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction limited to where a defendant is essentially at home)
- McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1957) (single purposeful contact may suffice for jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts and fairness analysis for due process)
- Helicópteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (contacts must be caused by defendant’s purposeful conduct)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (defendant must negate all possible bases for jurisdiction)
- Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (when plaintiff pleads sufficient allegations, burden shifts to defendant to negate jurisdictional bases)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (forum’s exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice)