385 F. Supp. 3d 284
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (retail FX customers) allege a multi‑bank conspiracy (2007–2013) to manipulate FX benchmark rates via trader chat rooms, causing inflated prices passed to retail purchasers.
- Defendants are large foreign banks (all headquartered outside the U.S.); Plaintiffs are U.S. residents including New York residents.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; the motion was decided on affidavits and written submissions with plaintiffs required to make a prima facie showing.
- The court evaluated whether exercising personal jurisdiction over each foreign bank in New York comported with due process (minimum contacts and reasonableness).
- The court found a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction as to Barclays, BNP Paribas, HSBC, Standard Chartered, and UBS AG; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction MUFG, RBS, SocGen, and UBS Group AG.
- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as to RBS and SocGen, concluding plaintiffs failed to allege non‑conclusory, New York‑linked conspiracy contacts for those banks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New York can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over foreign banks for alleged FX price‑fixing conspiracy | Contant: conspiracy jurisdiction is proper because defendants participated in cartel chat rooms and co‑conspirators committed in‑forum overt acts | Foreign Defs: no sufficient New York‑directed conduct; some defendants lack forum contacts; agency required to impute co‑conspirator acts | Court: specific jurisdiction exists for Barclays, BNP Paribas, HSBC, Standard Chartered, UBS AG; not for MUFG, RBS, SocGen, UBS Group AG |
| Whether a formal agency relationship is required to establish conspiracy jurisdiction | Contant: agency not required; co‑conspirator status suffices to attribute in‑forum acts | Foreign Defs: must show agency or else jurisdiction would rest on unilateral third‑party acts | Court: agency is not a prerequisite under Schwab; conspiracy jurisdiction can rest on participation plus co‑conspirator in‑forum overt acts, subject to due process foreseeability requirement |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded defendant participation sufficiently (pleading standard for involvement) | Contant: Complaint alleges each defendant's traders participated in chat rooms coordinating trades | Foreign Defs: some defendants (e.g., UBS Group AG) are lumped with affiliates; allegations are conclusory | Court: allegations suffice for all but UBS Group AG (no non‑conclusory, fact‑specific allegations about UBS Group AG) |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable under Due Process (burden, forum interest, efficiency, comity) | Contant: New York has strong interest; plaintiffs and related cases are in this district; efficient coordination favors NY | Foreign Defs: would be burdensome; comity concerns | Court: defendants failed to show undue burden or compelling comity concerns; reasonableness factors favor New York |
Key Cases Cited
- Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 883 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2018) (test for conspiracy‑based specific jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction—'at home' standard)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (suit‑related conduct must create substantial connection with forum)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (defendant must reasonably anticipate being haled into court)
- Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., 148 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 1998) (pleading must be non‑conclusory and fact‑specific for jurisdictional allegations)