Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Jurisdiction challenged in platinum, palladium price fixing suit, (Jul 17, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company Ltd. (LPPFC) has moved to dismiss claims the company colluded to manipulate platinum and palladium prices. It argues that plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie basis for asserting personal jurisdiction, and there are no facts sufficient to subject LPPFC to general or specific personal jurisdiction in New York (In re Platinum and Palladium Antitrust Litigation, Dkt. 1:14-cv-09391-GHW).

LPPFC is a private company that is organized under English law and is based in London. It has four members, including defendants BASF Metals, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and Standard Bank (member defendants). The plaintiffs claim that the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over LPPFC because it either: (1) transacted business throughout; (2) had substantial contacts with; (3) committed overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy in; or otherwise (4) had the intended effect of, causing injury to persons residing in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States. Conversely, in support of its motion to dismiss, LPPFC claims that the first amended complaint is “utterly devoid of factual allegations to support such a conclusion.” Further, LPPFC asserts that the complaint falls short of making a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction may be asserted over it, a company that has never been present in the United States or has ever conducted business in the United States.

Specifically, LPPFC asserts that it is not subject to the general personal jurisdiction of the court, because the complaint is devoid of any allegations that LPPFC has any contacts with New York, let alone the constant and pervasive contacts that would suggest LPPFC is “at home” in New York. The company is also not subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this case, LPPFC argues, because plaintiffs conceded that LPPFC’s suit-related conduct took place entirely in London, and there are no allegations that LPPFC transacted business or undertook any conduct in New York or anywhere else in the United States.

Lastly, LPPFC argues that the alter ego doctrine does not provide an alternative basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over LPPFC because: (1) the standard for demonstrating alter ego under English law requires the plaintiffs to show that member defendants created LPPFC only after incurring potential liability to plaintiffs, but the period when the alleged “right of relief” arose began four years after its existence; (2) English law rejects the use of alter ego in cases where plaintiffs may recover directly from principal actors, such as the member defendants; and (3) even under federal common law, plaintiffs have not articulated any reason why it would be unfair under the circumstances not to disregard the corporate form if personal jurisdiction were not asserted against LPPFC.

Attorneys: Ethan E. Litwin (Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP) for The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company Ltd.

Companies: The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company Ltd.

News: Antitrust