420 F.Supp.3d 219
S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Alaska Permanent Fund, Alaska Dept. of Revenue, Iron Workers Pension Plan) allege a conspiracy among foreign banks and four U.K. traders to fix prices in the U.S. dollar–denominated supranational, sovereign, and agency (USD SSA) secondary bond market from 2009–2015.
- Defendants include thirteen foreign dealer banks (headquartered abroad) and four individual traders who allegedly communicated via chat and coordinated pricing through London desks and U.S.-based sales desks.
- Plaintiffs allege U.S. contacts: U.S.-based salespeople relayed investor requests to London traders, trades were executed for U.S. counterparties, attendance at New York conferences, and market-wide statistical evidence of pricing anomalies during the alleged period.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue (Clayton Act §12), and for failure to satisfy federal and state long-arm standards; Plaintiffs sought jurisdictional discovery and reliance on Rule 4(k)(2).
- The Court found Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations conclusory and lacking specific U.S./New York-directed acts or identified transactions, denied jurisdictional discovery, and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue & personal jurisdiction under Clayton Act (§12) | Venue proper because defendants "transacted business" in New York and directed collusive USD SSA trading to the U.S. | Plaintiffs failed to allege substantial, continuous business in NY; contacts are isolated/boilerplate. | Dismissal: §12 venue not established; §12 personal jurisdiction unavailable. |
| New York long-arm (CPLR §302) — transacts business / tort in state | Defendants availed themselves of NY via NY offices, U.S. sales desks, client meetings, and pricing/approval for U.S. investors. | Allegations are conclusory, lack transaction-level facts tying NY activity to plaintiffs’ claims; isolated conferences/trips insufficient. | Dismissal: §302(a)(1)-(3) not satisfied for corporate or individual defendants. |
| Conspiracy (imputing co‑conspirator contacts) jurisdiction | Jurisdiction can be imputed via conspiracy; chat logs, plus statistical evidence, and trader suspensions support a conspiracy and in‑forum co‑conspirator acts. | Chats are sporadic/fragmentary, show opportunistic trader conduct not a market‑wide dealer conspiracy; no specifics tying co‑conspirator acts to NY. | Dismissal: conspiracy jurisdiction not established — conspiracy plausibly alleged as to some traders but not tied to New York acts. |
| Federal long-arm (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2)) & jurisdictional discovery | Rule 4(k)(2) applies because claims are federal and defendants had substantial U.S. contacts; request for discovery to fill gaps. | Plaintiffs failed to certify defendants aren’t subject to jurisdiction in any state and failed to plead aggregated U.S. contacts meeting minimum‑contacts test; discovery plan absent. | Dismissal: Rule 4(k)(2) not satisfied (no certification, insufficient contacts); jurisdictional discovery denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires being "at home" in forum)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 ("effects test" for purposeful direction)
- Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Citigroup, Inc., 709 F.3d 129 (plus‑factors and inference of conspiracy in antitrust pleading)
- Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine, 428 F.3d 408 (Clayton Act personal jurisdiction limited to proper‑venue suits)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction)
- Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., 148 F.3d 181 (conclusory jurisdictional allegations insufficient)
- Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 823 F.3d 759 (pleading standard in class antitrust litigation)
- In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., 74 F. Supp. 3d 581 (chatroom communications as direct evidence of collusion)
- Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326 (factors for nationwide contacts under federal long‑arm)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC, 936 F.3d 86 (antitrust standing where injury occurs in the constrained market)