Panircelvan Kaliannan v. Ee Liang, 2 F.4th 727

NDD was a North Dakota real-estate Ponzi scheme offering interests + management agreements that functioned as investment contracts (i.e., securities) but were unregistered.
Defendant Ee Hoong Liang, a Singapore resident, solicited foreign investors (including Plaintiffs), received commissions, traveled to North Dakota to market the investments, sent photos/videos of the properties, and directed investors to send money and paperwork to North Dakota.
Plaintiffs invested in July 2013; the SEC shut down the scheme in May 2015 and Plaintiffs lost their investments.
Plaintiffs sued Liang in District of North Dakota for violations of the Securities Act of 1933, multiple provisions of the North Dakota Securities Act, and negligence. Liang initially appeared pro se, later sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, then largely ceased participation.
The district court denied the motion to dismiss, deemed Liang’s responses to Requests for Admission admitted for failure to timely respond, granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for summary judgment, and awarded $852,638.81 in damages.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed: jurisdiction and venue were proper; it declined to consider forum non conveniens raised for the first time on appeal; and it upheld summary judgment based on deemed admissions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Liang's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction	Liang purposefully availed himself of North Dakota by soliciting sales, receiving ND commissions, traveling there, and coordinating with ND entities	Liang argued lack of sufficient contacts with North Dakota and that communications occurred in Singapore	Court held specific jurisdiction proper: multiple purposeful, related contacts with ND satisfied minimum-contacts test
Venue (28 U.S.C. § 1391)	Substantial events occurred in ND and the securities related to ND real property	Venue improper because parties and many communications were in Singapore	Court held venue proper because substantial part of events or property were in North Dakota
Forum non conveniens	N/A	Singapore is a more appropriate forum (raised first on appeal)	Not considered on appeal because Liang failed to raise it in district court
Summary judgment / deemed admissions	Requests for Admission established liability on all claims; Plaintiffs entitled to judgment as a matter of law	Liang argued the district court should have considered his answer and motion to dismiss and attacked some of Plaintiffs’ evidence	Court affirmed summary judgment: Liang’s unsworn answer/motion were not evidence; deemed admissions binding; Plaintiffs entitled to judgment

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment test for specific jurisdiction)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability and contacts principle in jurisdiction analysis)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (contacts must be with the forum state itself, not merely with forum residents)
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (specific jurisdiction exists where defendant’s contacts with the forum relate to the plaintiff’s claims)
Whaley v. Esebag, 946 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 2020) (application of forum long-arm and five-factor specific-jurisdiction test)
K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2011) (totality-of-circumstances approach to specific jurisdiction)
SEC v. Edwards, 540 U.S. 389 (2004) (investment contracts are securities under the securities laws)
Alton Box Board Co. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 560 F.2d 916 (8th Cir. 1977) (elements and reliance rules for § 77l(a)(2) securities claims)
Calon v. Bank of Am., N.A., 915 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard for reviewing an unopposed summary judgment motion)