AMENDED OPINION 1
1 Energy Claims Limited (ECL) appeals the trial court's dismissal of its claims against Catalyst Investment Group Limited (Catalyst), Timothy Roberts, Christopher P. Baker, Thomas DePetrillo, Charles Becker, and Robert Beuret for forum non conveniens, and the dismissal of its claims against ARM Asset-Backed Securities, S.A. (ARM), for improper venue. We affirm.
BACKGROUND 2
2 Eneco, Inc., was incorporated in Utah in 1991 for the purpose of developing tech *260 nologies related to cold fusion. Eneco subsequently redirected its research and development activities to focus on thermal chip technologies. Between 1999 and 2006, Ene-co raised and spent significant funds by selling equity in Eneco and borrowing funds from lenders. One group of lenders, the 2005 Noteholders, advanced several million dollars to Eneco, securing the loans with Eneco's rights to its patents. In 2006, Ene-eo's board of directors (board)-consisting of Harold L. Brown, Max Lewinsohn, Patrick Murrin, and Charles Becker-projected that a minimum of $5 million in additional funds was needed to develop a commerecially-viable product.
1 3 On May 15, 2006, Eneco entered into a contract with Catalyst (Catalyst Agreement), a United Kingdom investment group with its principal place of business in London, England. Pursuant to the Catalyst Agreement, Catalyst agreed to provide general corporate financial advice and to assist Eneco in the issuance of a $40 million convertible corporate bond. The Catalyst Agreement contained a forum selection clause that stated, "This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the Laws of England, and the parties hereto submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales." Timothy Roberts, the executive director of Catalyst, represented that Catalyst would raise $5 million for Ene-co by September 830, 2006. Roberts is a resident of England and a director and agent of ARM, a société anonyme 3 incorporated under the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. ARM's principal place of business is in Luxembourg, and its operations are focused on transactions involving asset-backed securities. Acting as ARM's agent, Catalyst advised Eneco to involve ARM in its fundraising efforts. Specifically, Catalyst proposed that Eneco "sell an investment bond, the 'C8 Bond,' issued by Eneco Finane-ing, S.A., which in turn would be made up of bonds issued by Eneco and bonds issued by ARM." Catalyst also encouraged Eneco to form two subsidiaries, Eneco Europe, PLC (Eneco Europe), and Eneco Assets, Ltd. (Eneco Assets). Catalyst's strategy called for Eneco to license its intellectual property rights in the United Kingdom to Eneco Assets, then sell shares of Eneco Assets to Eneco Europe, so that Catalyst could offer shares of Eneco Europe to third-party investors to fund Eneco Europe's purchase of shares of Eneco Assets. Catalyst represented that this mechanism would raise at least $5 million for Eneco.
T4 To facilitate the sale of Eneco Europe's shares and the issuance of the $40 million convertible bond, Catalyst asked Emeco to convert the 2005 Noteholders' debt to equity. Catalyst, ARM, and Roberts were aware that the 2005 Noteholders were unlikely to agree to such a conversion in the absence of assurances that Catalyst was successful in its fundraising efforts on behalf of Eneco. Based on written assurances from Roberts, Eneco informed the 2005 Noteholders that Catalyst had raised $5 million as promised. In reliance on this information, "the 2005 Noteholders agreed to convert their loans to equity upon the express condition that Catalyst had raised $5 million for Emeco," and "Eneco treated the debt owed to [the] 2005 Noteholders as having been converted to equity."
{5 By early 2007, Eneco's board was concerned that none of the money allegedly raised by Catalyst had been received. Therefore, the board "hired counsel in the United Kingdom in order to investigate and pursue possible claims against Catalyst and possibly others for breach of contract and fraud." Catalyst was made aware of Eneco's concerns through a letter from Eneco's U.K. lawyer demanding that it perform its obligations under the Catalyst Agreement. 4
T6 In June 2007, Roberts approached Becker, a member of Eneco's board, to enlist his help in reconstituting Eneco's board for *261 the benefit of Catalyst and ARM. Becker is a resident of Texas. In exchange for Becker's efforts to appoint three new directors acceptable to Catalyst, Catalyst agreed to pay Becker, or a company controlled by Becker, $300,000 to develop a demonstration unit of Eneco's technology. Without disclosing the agreement with Catalyst to the rest of Ene-co's board, Becker recruited three new directors, Baker, Beuret, and DePetrillo, who were investment bankers "familiar to Catalyst." Baker and Beuret are residents of Massachusetts, and DePetrillo is a resident of Rhode Island. Becker, Baker, DePetrillo, and Beuret (collectively, Defendant Directors) secretly acquired proxies from Ene-eo's shareholders and voted those shares so that Baker, DePetrillo, and Beuret were appointed to the Eneco board. Once ensconced on the Eneco board, the Defendant Directors conspired with Catalyst, ARM, and Roberts "to pursue their own self interests at the expense of Emeco." Specifically, ECL alleges that the conspirators publically listed Ene-eo's stock, enriched themselves with fees, and refused to hold a special shareholder's meeting authorized by resolution of the board.
17 By October 2007, Eneco was in default to the 2005 Noteholders and had no means to satisfy the deficiencies; the board acknowledged that the debt had been improperly converted to equity. Eneco's chief executive officer, Lewinsohn, acting through Maximillian & Co., an English sole proprietorship, notified Eneco that Maximillian & Co. had been appointed as collateral agent for the 2005 Noteholders. Despite numerous proposals from Maximillian & Co. to resolve the matter favorably to Emeco and to reconstitute the Eneco board in a manner acceptable to the 2005 Noteholders, the Defendant Directors refused to accept any offer from Maximillian & Co. and also rejected the written financing proposals from two other suitors presented to Eneco's board by Lew-insohn in November 2007. In response, Lewinsohn resigned as a director of Eneco and Murrin resigned shortly thereafter. In December 2007, Lewinsohn, acting through Maximillian & Co., initiated procedures to foreclose on Emeco's right to its patents on behalf of the 2005 Noteholders.
8 In December 2007, the Eneco Europe board, which included Roberts's wife, Barbara Piper, "put Eneco Europe into administration under the laws of the United Kingdom due to it insolvency." Because the administration of Emeco Europe was detrimental to Catalyst's business reputation, Catalyst sought a method to make Eneco Europe solvent. Roberts and Catalyst accomplished this purpose by inducing the Defendant Directors to forgive Eneco Europe's $3.5 million debt to Eneco for no consideration.
T 9 In early 2008, the Defendant Directors entered into an agreement with Catalyst, ARM, and Roberts (the Subscription Agreement), in which ARM agreed to finance Ene-co's anticipated bankruptcy proceedings for $225,000 by purchasing shares of Eneco in that amount "provided that [ARM] obtain a release of any prior commitment to provide funds to Eneco." The Subscription Agreement contained provisions selecting the laws of England and Wales and designating the courts of England and Wales as the choice of forum. ECL alleges that, in furtherance of the conspiracy, the Defendant Directors entered into the Subscription Agreement, thereby releasing Roberts, Catalyst, and ARM from liability for breach of the Catalyst Agreement, and that they did so without adequate consideration.
10 On January 18, 2008, Eneco filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. See generally 11 U.S.C. §§ 1101-74 (2006). Thereafter, in June 2008, the bankruptcy trustee converted the case to a liquidation proceeding pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. See generally id. §§ 701-84. All of Eneco's assets were sold by the bankruptey trustee to pay Eneco's creditors. Maximillian & Co., the 2005 Noteholders' collateral agent, purchased Eneco's causes of action against all of the defendants from the bankruptcy estate for $750,000. Maximillian & Co. then assigned those causes of action to ECL. ECL is a British Virgin Islands company with its principal place of business in Tortola, British Virgin Islands.
111 On January 9, 2009, ECL filed a complaint in the Third Judicial District Court *262 of Utah against Catalyst, ARM, and the Defendant Directors, asserting three causes of action and praying for over $150 million in relief. First, ECL alleges that the Defendant Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Eneco in their dealings with Catalyst, ARM, and Roberts. Second, ECL contends that the Defendant Directors, Catalyst, Roberts, and ARM entered into a civil conspiracy in furtherance of which the Defendant Directors "(1) refused to pursue claims against Catalyst, ARM, and Roberts, (2) released claims against Catalyst, ARM and Roberts, and (8) released claims against Ene-co Europe." Third, ECL alleges that "Catalyst, ARM, and Roberts knowingly induced, aided and abetted the numerous breaches of fiduciary duty by [the Defendant Directors]. In addition, ECL alleges that the Subscription Agreement revoked the Catalyst Agreement. None of the parties to the complaint is a Utah resident. -
112 On March 13, 2009, the Defendant Directors filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint accusing them of breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy. Approximately one month later, Catalyst filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue and forum non conveniens. Roberts filed a separate motion to dismiss, joining in the arguments advanced by Catalyst, and adding the defense of failure to state a claim. In support of the motion, Catalyst and Roberts explained that the claims were all based on "Catalyst's purported failure to perform its obligations under [the Catalyst Agreement]" and that the efforts of Catalyst under that agreement "were to occur and did occur principally in the United Kingdom and Europe, through a bond offering to be listed on the Channel Island Stock Exchange and through services to be governed by the rules of England's Financial Services Authority (the equivalent of the United States' Securities [and] Exchange Commission)." Catalyst and Roberts pointed to the Catalyst Agreement's designation of England and Wales as the choice of law and forum, claiming that ECL could not avoid that forum selection clause by repackaging its breach of contract claims against Catalyst and Roberts as tort claims consisting of conspiring with and aiding and abetting the Defendant Directors. Catalyst and Roberts also argued that the complaint should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, noting that the primary parties are located outside of Utah, with many of them located in Europe, and that "access to the documents and testimony is made more difficult, not easier by litigating in Utah."
{13 In response, ECL filed a memoran-dium in opposition to Catalyst's and Roberts's motions to dismiss, asserting that the claims were not within the seope of the Catalyst Agreement's forum selection clause and were instead focused on the breach of fiduciary duty by the Defendant Directors, who joined in a conspiracy with and were aided by Catalyst, Roberts, and ARM. Because Roberts was not a party to the Catalyst Agreement, ECL argued that he could not rely on it to prevent litigation in Utah, even if it were applicable. In addition, ECL argued that Catalyst and Roberts had failed to meet their heavy burden under the doctrine of forum non conveniens of coming forward with evidence of the hardship they would suffer if the case were tried in Utah. ECL further asserted that there was no other convenient forum because Utah is the only forum with personal jurisdiction over all of the parties.
{ 14 On May 15, 2009, ARM filed a separate motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction. ARM argued that the claims against it were within the seope of the forum selection clause in the Subscription Agreement and, therefore, venue in Utah was improper. With respect to personal jurisdiction, ARM contended that it did not have minimum contacts with the State of Utah. In support, ARM filed a declaration from Roberts, in his capacity as a director of ARM, indicating that ARM "provides services primarily to clients in England and Europe," and further stating that it has no contacts with Utah other than its participation in the Subscription Agreement.
T15 On May 26, 2009, Catalyst and Roberts filed a reply, again arguing that the claims were within the seope of the Catalyst Agreement's forum selection clause, that Roberts was entitled to the protection of that *263 clause, and that the complaint should be dismissed for forum non conveniens. With the reply memorandum, Catalyst and Roberts filed a declaration from Moray Macpherson, the "Head of Legal Management and Risk of Defendant Catalyst." The declaration indicated that Catalyst provides services to clients primarily in England and Europe, had done no business with a Utah entity other than Eneco, and had no other connections to Utah, past or present. According to Mac-pherson, all of Catalyst's services to Emeco were provided pursuant to the Catalyst Agreement and the Subscription Agreement, which were negotiated and executed in England. Macpherson also stated that Catalyst was compelled to participate in Eneco's Utah bankruptcy proceedings "at great expense and hardship to its business," due to the time and money required to defend its interests, including "thousands of dollars in traveling expenses," and the costs of hiring additional staff, who were "regularly ... forced to work at odd hours to coordinate with local counsel" due to the seven-hour time difference. In closing, Macpherson stated, "If forced to defend claims brought in this action, Catalyst will suffer these same grave hardships," in that it "would again be foreed to expend significant sums to employ local counsel, fly to and from Utah, and maintain staff in London to coordinate with Utah," resulting in "disruption of Catalyst's business [that] will place enormous strain upon our operational capacity," and the expenditure of "significant expense and time" due to the fact that "most parties and witnesses are located far from Utah."
1 16 On June 12, 2009, ECL filed its opposition memorandum to ARM's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, arguing that ARM had significant contacts with Utah, that Utah is the proper forum for the resolution of the dispute, and that the tort claims asserted were based on facts that occurred before the Subscription Agreement was executed and, therefore, do not fall within its forum selection clause. In the alternative, ECL argued that even if the forum selection clause did apply, the Utah court should not enforce it because to do so would deprive ECL of its day in court,. ARM filed a reply memorandum contending that the Utah court did not have personal jurisdiction over it and that the claims were related to the Subscription Agreement and, thus, were required to be brought in England, which was also the most convenient forum.
T 17 After briefing was completed, the Defendant Directors joined in the motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens and expressly consented to the jurisdiction of the English courts, explaining that "the whole matter should be litigated in a single action in that forum," and opining that "[this will not result in prejudice to [ECL], which is a British Virgin Islands company, particularly where its predecessor [Maximillian & Co.] is already a party to an action in England involving substantially similar issues." ECL objected to the Defendant Directors' joinder, claiming that ECL was not a party to the English proceedings and that the Defendant Directors could not meet their heavy burden of establishing forum non conveniens.
118 On August 11, 2009, the trial court scheduled a hearing on the combined motions to dismiss for October 14, 2009, reserving two-and-one-half hours for argument. On October 9, 2009, Catalyst, Roberts, and ARM filed a Request for Judicial Notice, asking the trial court to take judicial notice of related legal proceedings filed
M) with the Third Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, No. 080928582, styled Maximillian & Co. v. Catalyst Investment Group Limited et al. (the "Utah Noteholder Action"); (i) with the Third Judicial District Court in and for Summit County, State of Utah, No. 080500707, styled Harry Reed, et al. v. Catalyst Investment Group Limited et al. (the "Park City Action"); (iiM) with the English High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, No. HCO8C03158, styled Catalyst Investment Group Ltd. et al. v. Max Lewinsohn et al. (the "UK Noteholder Action"); (iv) with the English High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, No. HCO8CO83241, styled Catalyst Investment Group Ltd. et al. v. Max Lewinsohn et al. (the "UK Declaratory Action"); and (v) with the English High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, No. HCO8C08618, *264 styled ARM Asset-Backed Securities, S.A. v. Max Lewinsohn et al. (the "UK ARM Action").
The motion includes attachments of tran-seripts, documents, and decisions from these identified proceedings, including the decision and order dismissing the Utah Noteholder Action for forum non conveniens; the order in the UK Noteholder Action denying a motion to dismiss brought by the defendants there based on forum non conveniens; 5 forms purporting to be Maximillian & Co.'s admission of liability for "the whole claim" in the UK Declaratory Action and the UK ARM Action; and documents entitled "Particulars of Claim" from the UK ARM Action and the UK Declaratory Action. 6
19 Due to a continuance, the hearing on the motions to dismiss took place on December 16, 2009. After extensive argument, the trial court took the motions under advisement. The following day, the trial court announced its ruling from the bench and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss ECL's complaint for forum non conveniens as to Catalyst, Roberts, and the Defendant Directors, and for improper venue as to defendant ARM. ECL now appeals.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
120 To begin, ECL contends that the trial court did not apply the correct legal standard when dismissing its complaint for forum non conveniens because Utah's framework for analyzing such motions is outdated and should be replaced with a threshold test similar to that applied by the federal courts.
7
"[ Whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is a question of law that is reviewed for correctness." Chen v. Stewart,
1 21 ECL next asserts that, even using the current Utah standard for analyzing motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens, the trial court erred in dismissing ECL's causes of action. We review the trial court's decision to dismiss a complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens for abuse of discretion. See Kish v. Wright,
122 Finally, ECL argues that the trial court erred in granting ARM's motion to dismiss for improper venue based on the forum selection clause in the Subscription Agreement. The trial court's interpretation of the forum selection clause is a question of law that we review for correctness. See Inmerlight, Inc. v. Matrix Grp., LLC,
ANALYSIS
I. The Trial Court Did Not Exeeed Its Discretion in Dismissing ECL's Claims for Forum Non Conveniens.
128 Trial courts, as courts of general jurisdiction, have inherent power to dismiss an action on the basis of forum non conveniens. See Summa Corp. v. Lancer Indus., Inc.,
the location of the primary parties[;] where the fact situation creating the controversy arose[;] the ease of access to proof, including the availability and costs of obtaining witnesses; the enforceability of any judgment that may be obtained; and the burdens that may be imposed upon the court in question in litigating matters which may not be of local concern.
Id. at 546. The supreme court then instructed that these factors are to be considered "in the light of the particular facts of each case and [the trial court should] balance the considerations in favor of according the plaintiff the assurance" of constitutional access to the courts. See id.; see also Utah Const. art. I, § 11 (All courts shall be open, and every person ... shall have remedy by due course of law, which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay. ...").
A. The Trial Court Properly Considered the Availability of an Alternative Forum.
124 ECL argues that the trial court erred in numerous ways when applying the Summa standard. First, ECL contends that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by considering a factor not identified in Summa. In support of this argument, ECL points to the trial court's statement that "this Court's decision is premised upon the finding that all of the defendants have conceded to the jurisdiction of the Courts of England as a more convenient forum." However, we see nothing improper in that comment. The trial court's consideration of this issue is consistent with the "pre-requisite required" before a court declines to exercise jurisdiction over an action "that another alternate, available forum is still open to the plaintiff." See Kish,
B. Where the Causes of Action Were Factually and Legally Intertwined, the Trial Court Was Not Required To Evaluate the Claim Against the Defendant Directors Independently.
125 ECL next argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed ECLH's first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the Defendant Directors, without considering that claim separately. According to ECL, even if we uphold the trial court's ruling with regard to the claims against the other defendants, we should reverse with respect to the first cause of action against the Defendant Directors, because they are all United States citizens who formerly served on Eneco's board. Because Eneco was a Utah corporation, ECL contends that the Defendant Directors can show neither that they would suffer hardship if the case is tried in Utah, nor that another forum would be more convenient.
T26 In support of its position that each cause of action must be considered separately, ECL relies on the Sixth Circuit's decision in Duha v. Agrium, Inc.,
127 Although ECL seizes on the above language from Duha to argue that the trial court erred in dismissing the first cause of action against the Defendant Directors, the facts present here are distinguishable. In Duhka, the appellate court found that the district court viewed the case solely as a wrongful termination case for purposes of its forum non conveniens analysis and ignored the factually and analytically distinet remainder of the plaintiff's claims. See id. at 880-81. In contrast, the trial court here found that the three separate causes of action against the various defendants were factually and analytically intertwined.
28 Indeed, ECL's complaint alleges fifty-one paragraphs of shared factual background and then incorporates those allegations into all three claims for relief. Essentially, the complaint involves complex issues arising out of the business relationships between ECL's predecessor-in-interest, Eneco, on the one hand, and Catalyst, ARM, Roberts, and the Defendant Directors on the other. The series of business transactions that resulted in this dispute began in 2006 and include the execution of two contracts, the Catalyst Agreement and the Subscription Agreement, which each contain a choice of law and forum provision identifying England and Wales; the creation of two wholly-owned Eneco subsidiaries, Eneco Europe and Eneco Assets; and the involvement of business entities and individuals with no connection to Utah. ECL's entire conspiracy theory is premised on the assumption that Catalyst was in breach of the Catalyst Agreement, feared multi-million dollar liability and recruited the Defendant Directors to manipulate the Ene-co board so as to relieve it of that liability. Indeed, ECL contends that the Subscription Agreement was nothing more than a nullifi *267 cation of Emeco's claims against coconspira-tors Catalyst, ARM, and Eneco Europe for little or no consideration. As a result, the breach of fiduciary duty claims necessarily involve the assessment of whether Catalyst was, in fact, in breach of the Catalyst Agreement and, if so, the estimate of the magnitude of any resulting liability that may have motivated Catalyst to engage in a conspiracy with the other defendants. Unlike the complaint in Duha, ECU's first cause of action against the Defendant Directors for breach of fiduciary duty is factually and legally intertwined with the claims against the other defendants. Under the facts present here, we agree with the trial court that the claims against the Defendant Directors could be considered in light of the broader dispute involving the other defendants.
C. Despite ECL's Choice of Forum, the Trial Court Did Not Exceed Its Discretion in Dismissing the Complaint.
129 Next, ECL argues that the trial court erred in dismissing all three of ECU's causes of action because, as the plaintiff, ECL's choice of forum is entitled to deference and the findings on the record do not support a dismissal for forum non conveniens in contravention of that choice. In Summa, the supreme court indicated that "the general policy of the law is that when a plaintiff has commenced a lawsuit and acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, he should be allowed to pursue his remedy; and that such a motion to dismiss should be granted only with great caution and under compelling circumstances." See Summa Corp. v. Lancer Indus., Inc.,
T30 ECL is a British Virgin Islands company that purchased its claims from an English sole proprietorship, Maximillian & Co., that, in turn, bought the claims from Eneco's bankruptcy trustee While the trial court was required to exercise "great caution" before preventing ECL from pursuing its claims in Utah, it was not required to assign determinative weight to ECL's choice of forum in balancing the Summa factors. See Summa,
131 First, the trial court addressed the location of the primary parties, see id. at 546, stating that "none of the parties are Utah residents." ECL does not dispute that this is apparent from the complaint. While the trial court acknowledged that ECL purchased its claims via Maximillian & Co. from a now defunct Utah corporation, it concluded that any proceeds from the litigation "would enure to the benefit of a British Virgin Island resident," ECLA. 8
*268 132 Next, the trial court focused on "where the fact situation creating [the] controversy arose," see id. While ECL argues that the tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting can each be considered in isolation, the trial court reached a different conclusion based on its review of the complaint. Recognizing "a close interrelationship between [ECL's] tort claims and the agreements[,] which are at issue in this case," the trial court found "that the majority of the transactions alleged by plaintiff in this complaint occurred largely in Europe and England." As discussed previously, the breach of fiduciary duty is premised upon Catalyst's alleged breach of the Catalyst Agreement. The financial services contemplated by that agreement involved the sale of stock in Eneco Europe, a company formed to hold the stock of Eneco Assets, which in turn, held the right to exploit Ene-co's patents in the United Kingdom. The fundraising efforts pursuant to the Catalyst Agreement included the issuance of bonds by ARM, which were to be offered on the Channel Island Stock Exchange and governed by the rules of England's Financial Services Authority. Further, ECL claims that the defendants falsely represented that over $5 million had been placed with English solicitors as a commitment from "a major European private investment bank." When Eneco became concerned that Catalyst had not accurately reported these facts, it hired counsel in the United Kingdom to investigate its legal claims and to identify potential defendants.
133 From the face of the complaint, the trial court found that the facts related to the implosion of the European capital-raising efforts, including the truthfulness of the communications concerning those efforts, must be unraveled in order to assess the propriety of subsequent events involving the Defendant Directors. Indeed, ECL contends that Catalyst, ARM, and Roberts initiated the conspiracy and aided the Defendant Directors' breaches of fiduciary duties due to the damage to Catalyst's business reputation caused by the insolvency administration of Eneco Europe in England. Considering the allegations of the complaint, the trial court acknowledged that, while some harm may have occurred in Utah, the majority of the facts creating the controversy arose in Europe. Our reading of the complaint is in-line with that of the trial court, and we agree that the "fact situation creating {[the] controversy" arose primarily in Europe.
134 The trial court then evaluated the "ease of access to proof, including the availability and costs of obtaining witnesses," see id. Although ECL identified some Eneco witnesses located in Utah, the trial court found "that the primary defendants, Catalyst, Roberts, ARM, and their employees are in either England or in Luxembourg, and the [Defendant Directors] reside outside of the State of Utah. Therefore, this court is satisfied that most of the witnesses and parties reside outside of Utah." In addition, the trial court found that because the transactions alleged in the complaint occurred outside of Utah, "[the documents regarding the transactions additionally can be expected to be located principally outside of Utah where the primary defendants reside, although Eneco documents are expected to be located in Utah." The trial court therefore concluded that "easier access to proof, both documentary and testimonial, is more convenient ... in England." While ECL points to documents located in Utah due to the bankruptcy proceedings and some witnesses with Utah connections, it does not dispute the trial court's findings regarding the location of the named parties. Instead, ECL contends that the trial court's assumptions about the location of those parties' documents were not supported by sufficient evidence. In support, ECL correctly notes that in Summa Corp. v. Lancer Industries, Inc.,
1 35 In Mooney, the plaintiff was a Colorado resident who was injured in Colorado by the alleged negligence of the defendant, Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City. See
€ 36 In determining that this evidence was insufficient, the supreme court began by highlighting that "[the contents of the affidavit filed by the defendant were controverted," id. at 647-48, and that "a substantial amount of [the affidavit] adopted by the court [was] hearsay," id. at 648. However, the supreme court also attacked the defendant's affidavit for its lack of specificity, indicating that the witnesses were not identified by either name or residence, and there was no explanation of why a view of the site of the accident would be helpful to the jury. See id. Finally, the supreme court challenged the defendant's premise that resolving the dispute in Utah would be inconvenient for the courts of Utah, reasoning that the defendant's evidence did not indicate that the Utah courts were particularly busy, and noting that the plaintiff was not given the opportunity to refute the defendant's evidence on that issue. See id. at 649. In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that although the witnesses may reside in Colorado, they might live far enough from Denver that similar expenses may have been incurred in trying the case there. See id. at 648. Where the defendant had its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, the accident occurred and the witnesses were located in an adjacent state, and the defendant ran a railroad that serviced both cities, it is not surprising that the supreme court concluded that the affidavit was insufficient to warrant dismissal. See id. at 680, 647-49.
137 Here, the only connection any party has to Utah is that ECL bought the claims of a now-defunct Utah corporation from a foreign entity, Maximillian & Co. Although the defendants submitted only one declaration, the trial court relied on the face of the complaint to determine that the majority of the parties, witnesses, and documents were located in Europe and that the heart of the dispute arose from transactions in Europe. And ECL does not dispute that the employees of those foreign entities and their doeu-ments are not located in Utah. Rather, ECL points to the fact that a significant number of *270 documents have been transported to Utah and produced in connection with the Eneco bankruptey proceedings. While the trial court acknowledged that those documents had been produced in Utah, it deemed the greater number of parties, witnesses, and documents to be located outside of Utah, with the majority of them to be found in Europe, the situs of most of the events and parties described in the complaint.
38 Furthermore, as opposed to Mooney, where the trial court relied on speculation about the general burden on the Utah courts, the trial court here examined the specific claims asserted in the complaint and compared the burden of resolving the allegations in the Utah courts with the corresponding interest of Utah in the resolution of the matter. After assessing these benefits and burdens, the trial court concluded that while Utah had a minimal interest in the case, the courts and the citizens of Utah would shoulder an enormous burden if the litigation were allowed to proceed in Utah. Finally, we note that Mooney was decided before the Utah Supreme Court decided Summa, where the court adopted a balancing test to be applied by the trial court in determining whether to dismiss an action on the ground of forum non conveniens. 11
139 In Summa, one of the named defendants was a Utah limited partnership, see
I 40 While ECL justifiably attacks the lack of specificity in the single declaration provided by the defendants, the trial court's decision was based on its conclusion that the allegations in the complaint sufficiently illustrate that Utah is not a convenient forum. Based on those allegations, the trial court concluded that ECL's tort claims were part of a much more complicated dispute that involved the European activities of the primarily European defendants, and that the evidence and witnesses needed to determine whether the defendants were liable in tort were located primarily in Europe. We agree that the complaint supports the trial court's conclusion that the majority of the witnesses and documents are maintained outside of Utah and are located primarily in Europe.
4 41 The next factor from Summa that the trial court considered was "the enforceability of any judgment that may be obtained,"
{42 To begin, the forum non conveniens analysis is focused on whether the plaintiff, not the plaintiff's lawyers, can bring the action in an alternate forum. See, eg., Langenhorst v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.,
143 Next, although there are no Utah cases that explain the way in which a trial court should balance the forum non conve-niens factors when a foreign forum is available that the plaintiff views as less favorable than the chosen United States forum, several federal courts have addressed the issue. Most notably, in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
T 44 Finally, the trial court analyzed "the burdens that may be imposed upon the court in question in litigating matters which may not be of local concern." Summa,
45 The trial court next analyzed the burden on the defendants if the motion were to be denied. In doing so, the trial court was "satisfied that there is sufficient[ly] great hardship evident from the face of the complaint, and that the defendants would have to expend significant sums of money [and] resources to travel to and from Utah, to hire local counsel, to obtain documents, [and to] have them sent to Utah." ECL contends that the fact that Catalyst initiated an adversary proceeding in Eneco's Utah bankruptey proceedings is evidence that the trial court's finding are not supported. However, onee Eneco filed its petition with the United States Bankruptey Court for the District of Utah, Catalyst was required to file its adversary proceeding in that forum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a) (2006) ("[A] proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 may be commenced in the district court in which such case is pending."); see also Official Comm. of Asbestos Claimants of G-I Holding, Inc. v. Heyman,
1 46 To a large extent, this case presents a question of the amount of discretion to be afforded the trial court's decision granting or denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. "It is [the] general rule that the trial court's discretion to invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens will not be interfered with by an appellate court, absent an abuse of discretion." Kish v. Wright,
IL The Trial Court Did Not Err in Enforcing the Forum Selection Clause in the Subscription Agreement.
147 ECL also challenges the trial court's decision granting ARM's motion to dismiss for improper venue. The trial court based its ruling on the choice of forum provision of the Subscription Agreement, which provides,
8. Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or related to the agreement shall be brought exclusively before the courts of England & Wales.
9. This agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of England & Wales.
ARM and ECL's predecessor-in-interest, Eneco, are both parties to the Subscription Agreement, with a right to enforce the forum selection clause. See First Inv. Co. v. Andersen,
A. The Claims Asserted Against ARM Fall Within the Seope of the Forum Selection Clause.
T48 The trial court ruled that the allegations of the complaint were a "dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or related to" the Subscription Agreement and, therefore, were improperly brought in Utah. Pointing to the fact that its causes of action sound in tort, ECL contends that the forum selection clause does not apply to its complaint. ~
1 49 Specifically, ECL notes that the complained-of activities predate the formation of the Subscription Agreement, a fact the Southern District of New York considered determinative in Armco Inc. v. North Atlantic Insurance Co.,
T50 In contrast, the trial court here concluded that the forum selection clause in the Subscription Agreement "is sufficiently broad and encompassing to include the allegations set forth in the plaintiffs complaint." Unlike the situation in Armeo, ECU's cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is based on terms embodied in the Subscription Agreement. ECL alleges that by entering into the Subscription Agreement, the Defendant Directors, in a conspiracy with ARM and the other defendants, discharged Catalyst's liability for inadequate consideration, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties to Eneco. The Subscription Agreement allegedly embodies the breaches of fiduciary duty and is the product of the alleged conspiracy.
{ 51 Unlike the Armco court, we conclude that the tort claims here fall within the plain language of the Subscription Agreement. The agreement governs "any dispute, controversy or claim" that is "related to" the Sub-seription Agreement. The tort claims are related to the Subscription Agreement, and the use of "any" does not support a distinction between tort or contract claims. Consequently, we agree with the trial court that the parties intended that the forum selection clause apply to claims, whether sounding in tort or contract, that are related to the agreement. See Innerlight, Inc. v. Matrix Grp., LLC,
B. The Trial Court Did Not Exceed Its Discretion in Enforcing the Forum Selection Clause.
152 Utah courts give effect to a forum selection clause unless " 'it is unfair or unreasonable'" Prows v. Pinpoint Retail Sys., Inc.,
153 In considering whether to enforce a forum selection clause, the court should avoid a decision that will result in multiple legal actions. See Prows,
{54 For all these reasons, we conclude that ECL has not met its burden of demonstrating that enforcing the forum selection clause would be "unjust." See id. at 812. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's decision dismissing ECL's complaint against ARM based on improper venue under rule 12(b)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). 16
CONCLUSION
155 The trial court did not exceed its discretion in dismissing ECL's complaint for forum non conveniens where none of the parties is a Utah resident, the primary defendants and witnesses are located in Europe, and all defendants have consented to the jurisdiction of the English courts, providing ECL an alternative forum. The trial court correctly interpreted the forum selection clause in the Subscription Agreement and correctly dismissed the claims against ARM for improper venue.
T 56 Affirmed.
1 57 WE CONCUR: J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., Judge and STEPHEN L. ROTH, Judge.
Notes
. This Amended Opinion replaces the Opinion in Case No. 20100128-CA issued on October 14, 2011.
. In reviewing a motion to dismiss, "we view the facts and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and indulge all reasonable inferences in his favor." Prows v.
*260
Pinpoint Retail Sys., Inc.,
. A société anonyme is an incorporated joint-stock company. See Black's Law Dictionary 1518 (9th ed. 2009).
. Although ECL's opening brief indicates that Becker, Baker, DePetrillo, and Beuret caused Eneco to instruct the company's U.K. counsel not to send the demand letter to Catalyst, we recite the facts as set forth in the complaint.
. ECL is not a party to any of the actions in the United Kingdom.
. Although there is no written ruling on the request for judicial notice, at the hearing on the motions to dismiss, the trial court confirmed that opposing counsel had no objection to the motion, ECL made no objection to the use of the information by the defendants, and ECL relied on portions of the information during its own argument. Thus, we treat the motion as having been granted.
. ECL asks us to adopt a threshold test applied in some federal courts that would preclude the trial court from declining jurisdiction here. See, e.g., Needham v. Phillips Petroleum Co. of Nor.,
. For the first time in its reply brief on appeal, ECL argues that some of ECL's shareholders include former Eneco shareholders who reside in Utah and, thus, if there were proceeds from the litigation that were paid to former Eneco shareholders, a benefit would enure to these Utah *268 residents. However, this information was never presented to the trial court. Once the defendants asserted in their motion to dismiss that "[nlone of the parties is from Utah and the dispute does not involve issues of local interest," ECL was required to alert the trial court if it claimed that the litigation was a matter of local concern due to the residency of some of ECL's shareholders.
. Even after a remittitur that permitted the defendant to provide "somewhat more in detail its
*269
anticipated hardship and inconvenience," the trial court again denied the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and, after a trial and verdict against the defendant, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed that decision. See Mooney v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co.,
. It appears that because Catalyst, Roberts, and ARM did not submit more evidence on this point, the focus of their arguments in the trial court was that the claims against them were governed by the forum selection clauses in the Catalyst Agreement and, as to ARM, the Subscription Agreement. Thus, they argued that the clauses should be enforced unless the plaintiffs met their burden of convincing the court that enforcement of the forum selection provisions would be "unfair or unreasonable." See Prows v. Pinpoint Retail Sys.,
. Most jurisdictions that have considered the issue have adopted a balancing test under which the trial court considers a number of private and public factors to determine whether the action should be dismissed for forum non conveniens. See Koskar v. Ford Motor Co.,
. The Piper Aircraft Court identified a number of factors that make the courts of the United States attractive to foreign plaintiffs, including the concept of strict liability, the right to a jury trial, the ability to hire an attorney on a contingent fee basis, the absence of the risk of paying the successful party's attorney fees, and the availability of more extensive discovery. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
. We further note that, due to the Catalyst Agreement's and the Subscription Agreement's choice of law provisions, and our prior conclusion that the fiduciary duty claims are dependent, in part, on an interpretation of those agreements, the Utah court may have been faced with the additional burden of ascertaining and applying the law of England and Wales. See, eg., Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.,
. We are also unconvinced that Catalyst's contracts with third parties on unrelated matters that include forum selection clauses designating other cities in the United States is determinative of whether the trial court properly dismissed the complaint at issue for forum non conveniens. The issue before the trial court was whether the Summa factors, as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, warranted dismissal in favor of a more convenient forum.
. ECL devotes only two paragraphs of its fifty-page brief to the complex issue of whether the forum selection clause is unenforceable because the Subscription Agreement was allegedly entered in furtherance of a conspiracy in which the Defendant Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Eneco.
. For the same reasons discussed in part I of this decision, the claims against ARM could also have been dismissed for forum non conveniens.