EFTA00187482¶
334¶
351 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES¶
ORDER¶
For the reasons given in the accompanying memorandum of even date, it is hereby¶
ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.¶
In re ROYAL AHOLD SECURITIES & ERISA LITIGATION.¶
No. CIV.1:03-MD-01539.¶
United States District Court,¶
D. Maryland.¶
Dec. 21, 2004.¶
Background: Investors brought consolidated securities fraud actions arising out of an approximately $ 1.1 billion restatement of earnings, together with a $24.8 billion reduction in revenue, announced by Netherlands company involved in supermarket and food service business in the United States. Named as defendants were the company, its American subsidiaries, auditors, underwriters, and individual executives. Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss.¶
Holdings: The District Court, Blake, J., held that:¶
(1) subject matter jurisdiction existed over securities fraud claims asserted by foreign purchasers of shares on foreign exchanges;¶
(2) plaintiffs stated securities fraud claims against chief officers of Dutch company;¶
(3) allegation in complaint were sufficient to state market manipulation claims against chief officers; and¶
(4) plaintiffs failed to state securities fraud claim against auditors.¶
So ordered.¶
1. Federal Courts ⇌ 71¶
Personal jurisdiction extends to the limits of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5.¶
2. Constitutional Law ⇌ 305(5)¶
There are two primary factors to consider in evaluating personal jurisdiction under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment: (1) whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and (2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.¶
3. Federal Courts ⇌ 86¶
To satisfy the minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either: (1) engages in systematic or continuous activities in the United States, and thus general jurisdiction exists; or (2) purposefully directs his actions at the United States and the litigation arises from or is related to those actions, and thus specific jurisdiction exits.¶
4. Federal Courts ⇌ 76.10¶
In determining whether specific personal jurisdiction exists, district court considers: (1) the extent to which the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state; (2) whether the plaintiff’s claims arise out of those activities directed at the state; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable.¶
EFTA00187483¶