RIPPLEWOOD ADVISORS, LLC, plf-res, v. CALLIDUS CAPITAL SIA def-ap

4219. RIPPLEWOOD ADVISORS, LLC, plf-res, v. CALLIDUS CAPITAL SIA def-ap — Dentons US LLP, New York (Charles E. Dorkey III of counsel), for ap — Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York (Robert H. Baron of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered February 28, 2017, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) and 327(a), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4219. RIPPLEWOOD ADVISORS, LLC, plf-res, v. CALLIDUS CAPITAL SIA def-ap — Dentons US LLP, New York (Charles E. Dorkey III of counsel), for ap — Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York (Robert H. Baron of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered February 28, 2017, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) and 327(a), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

New York does not have personal jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), as they did not avail themselves “of the privilege of conducting activities within [this] State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” (Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The telephone and email communications between the Latvian defendants and plaintiff’s office in New York, concerning a contemplated association in the acquisition of a Latvian bank (with no presence in New York) undergoing privatization, do not suffice to constitute the transaction of business in New York. In so concluding, we find it persuasive that defendants never entered New York in connection with their dealings with plaintiff, that the parties’ electronic communications also ran between defendants and plaintiff’s London office, that plaintiff traveled to Latvia in connection with this matter, and that the parties’ contemplated association (if the bank were acquired) would be centered in Latvia (see e.g. SunLight Gen. Capital LLC v. CJS Invs. Inc., 114 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2014]).

RIPPLEWOOD ADVISORS, LLC, plf-res, v. CALLIDUS CAPITAL SIA def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal