never got past the twelve days stage they were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in spite of the fact that kane miller and hannaman were representing intrepid drilling and william simmons or mississippi residents in connection with matters that are directly related to this case and the area of personal jurisdiction as you know the parlance of that area distinguishes between general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction general jurisdiction usually requires a showing of systematic contacts such that two when it when it exists and that's the general holding of the famous a supreme court of helicopter arrows for his haul in this case we do have specific jurisdiction but i think we also have general jurisdiction because not only did miller and hannaman have this representation of mississippi clients in this case but also in two other major cases that hannaman himself handled that i'll mention later on and so i think we're actually satisf of c h also asserts jurisdiction against the k miller defendants under mississippi state law the law personal jurisdiction under mississippi state law requires a tort to have been committed in mississippi but what tort was it that was committed leading case on this is in re dresser industries from the early ninety's but it's been a leading case cited many many times favorably by this court in fact i don't think this case could be affirmed without either over ruling or at least disapproving strongly of going right dresser industries which would be a shame because it's been favorably said about this court numerous times including best the members of this family even though dresser is a landmark decision in the in this area the facts of this case are actually even more egregious in dresser sussman the disqualified attorney at least had the decency to notify dresser and stated that he would facilitate finding a new counsel basically the situation was his firm had a case for dress or a new antitrust case we came available he wanted the antitrust case against dresser and he said at like to handle this antitrust case it was a sexy case i guess and will facilitate your getting new counsel well they didn't tell me about this case in other words he took the position if they didn't specifically ask him about it he didn't have any obligation to tell them that was his view of his own ethical obligations and so i think this is actually  from dresser but what is the tort that took place in mississippi breach of fiduciary duty and how high did it happen in mississippi i mean the lawyers are in louisiana  your clients are out of state maybe out of country and i think it was simmons it's in in mississippi so or do we have the we we played conspiracy the whole thing was a conspiracy and some of the acts are imputed to the others and that provides a nexus to mississippi and i just want to mention the model rules don't make any distinction between whether a conflict arises they didn't tell our client about the representation at the same time ultimately intrepid agreed to pay back the money and there was over two million dollars lost in this in news fraudulent came miller news fraudulent two because they were in communication with each other and i'm going to show that there were attorney client communications between hannaman and our clients  well other than the fact that this whole the whole crux of this whole issue involves these louisiana process there are these simmons and intrepid who are in mississippi and they were the ones who screwed up well we played it conspiracy as i indicated it never got past the twelve be stage they were working together they both knew that the that the transaction was fraudulent i think they're working together when you have a conspiracy the acts of one is imputed to i don't know that there's a case that says it but it i think it is common sense under the law of conspiracy that you impute the conduct to all the parties and bear in mind on personal jurisdiction that hannaman was representing he was in contractual relationships with simmons and intrepid in mississippi and he was also handling two other major  for intrepid in mississippi so i think it's really a stretch to say that they don't have personal service nixon in mississippi that the so called conflicts check had been accomplished and then t one seventy three is another attorney client communication from jewish to panama and so that the that wasn't the point they were making they were just making the point in the order that we hadn't we hadn't proven that there were any at all and so that that's what i was addressing the point you're making about the louisiana answered that the conspiracy and there was that happened on january seventh twenty fifteen it was digitally recorded by julius this appears on page twenty three and twenty four of the first minute c this is the first time that julius realized there was a conflict one of the people in the meeting was jim designee who's a miami investor and his attorney the fact that there was an attorney present this meeting is of some significance when she found out about the conflict he immediately spoke up and challenge hannum and said words to the effect wait a minute if you're aware of such a clause and he's talking about a clause that went into the contract that this jim doesn't client got why did you not include there was not a conflict of interest does next lawyer looked at her hand and said well it's a conflict in chicago it's a conflict in illinois it's a conflict of various places and him and continue to shake his head and say repeatedly no no no it's not a conflict because there is not a conflict because it's a formation of a participation agreement as if oil and gas participation agreements had a special set of conflict laws that were not applicable to dollars they lost two million dollars because because of this conflict yes are because the wealth would never came out never never produced well they didn't produce and there has been  that's belied by the fact that after after this meeting that i referred to where the conflict was revealed mr kelson who's sitting over here one of my condo colleagues was hired by c h he fired the miller and then he then started the process of trying to get intrepid to pay back the money with a grade to pay back an agreement pay back the money i think they admitted that it was a fraudulent transaction and since they were in constant contact  team miller i think team miller also knows of fraudulent transactions so it wasn't because of the inherent riskiness of august really is because it was a fraudulent transaction so are you saying that they never intended to drill or complaint yes i mean simmons i think the record will reflect that he's a man that really can't be trusted with other people's money he had outstanding against him the one hundred and over two pay the money back but after he looked up their credit rating and found out that they were standing behind in the unpaid to the two hundred million dollar rico judgment and other atrocities like that he decided there was no there were obviously insolvent wh use and preparing the promissory note but nonetheless i think the fact that they were willing to pay it shows that they knew that it was a fraudulent transaction and i did the prado and transaction occur in that simmons misrepresent anything or was it are you saying the law firm was the one to commit the law firm and simmons were in cahoots and that's why they even concealed the conflict of interest the conflict of interest is really at the heart of this thing and i mention the dressers the key case on the subject dresser wasn't even signed by the opposing party i don't know what they have to say about dress or i guess i'll find out after  quickly that we all agree on what the law is that they must show a tort that was committed in mississippi they have the burden and only if there's a tort community in mississippi on page fourteen of their brief c h ask the question they represent is court today they didn't cite the dresser case dresser industries spend pages and pages on that known as the reason why we did not address dresser industries is this not a jurisdiction case they don't want to make  miller look as bad as possible paint them in a bad light that's got nothing to do with the jurisdictional issue we're on here today we will defend king miller at the appropriate time on these allegations of conflict of interest and what have you but that's not where we are today negligence any alleged breach british a duty in alleged negligence would have occurred in the state of louisiana their own allegations paragraph seventeen of the first amended complaint states that had i'm an emailer br large law firm and its connection here in louisiana and connection in mississippi providing opinion for the casinos in mississippi addressed to any entity in mississippi to use to say there would be about a mortgage plaintiff was in minnesota it was entity minnesota in a mississippi court held injury did not occur in mississippi the plans principal place of business there was in minnesota an opinion letter was drafted in new orleans the opinion letter was sent to counseling on the original break so we did not have an opportunity to bridgestone you for the court to quick sites in hawkins vs upjohn is eight nineteen federal supplement six zero one in your honors all be glad to send a l city that case aside for the case of nine twenty eight federal supplements second and eighty five and so in district texas case in two thousand and thirteen hawkins states that there are numerous problems with plaintiff's contention that if this court has personal jurisdiction over one of the conspirators it can exercise personal jurisdiction over the coconspirators as well exactly the argument that they're making here the court goes on and says first there is no support in the first circuit or any other circuit for that matter to support this court exercise and personally jurisdiction on this here completely rejected the conspiracy argument case you've got a louisiana lawyer joins with the mississippi lawyer and they will have a dispute over the c s the mississippi lawyer sousa louisiana lawyer in mississippi and court says no there's no jurisdiction there that should be over in louisiana which is where they should have been and so where the only connection in that case you had louisiana lawyer indeed it entered into a contract with a mississippi lawyer and they perform the work you know jurisdiction so th there's simply no jurisdiction here contracting with a resident of a of a form of state is not status from the baker versus mckenzie case has a nice comment it that i had picked up on it oh study says the contacts must be between the defendant in the form state not simply between the defendant in a resident of the hole so you there are no contacts here between him miller in mississippi the the fact is that the gist is no jurisdiction the suggestion that there could be any general jurisdiction is just completely belied by the facts no business and louise in and mississippi the law firm and a partner and there's nothing to suggest that came miller is essentially at home is the term used the courts use in mississippi so's so as to be subject to general jurisdiction in conclusion k miller has no s systematic and continuous contacts and mississippi did nothing to purposely direct his business activity in this into mississippi and because we expect to be held in court insisted now that leaves us with the next their six elements obviously just curious claim no loss causation is the one that we're on here today the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the act caused the loss the plan for seeking to recover but for is not enough are arguing but for in their argument strenuously but that's all they're arguing is but for there must be some direct causal relationship between the misrepresentation remission and the actual loss not about photo but you get to have some relationship  they try to argue that because this is a private security that somehow different than their cases still require loss causation the private security dichotomy  or point has been made has to do a fraud on the market that's not what this case is about they rely upon daily versions buck they like they live versions work a lot because it has against and that the facts in that case you've got a judgment that wasn't disclosed one of the things that they can come complain about here that mr hannaman do not know about the way but in bailey there was also another misrepresentation which is that the stock could not be transferred doesn't know where other claimants to it well that's lost causation right not address the enter but it is so plain to me that it it is appropriate that i'd like to address that with court very briefly court can affirm based on the what's in the record and what was argued below as long as it raised which we've done reasonable person that seen through was involved they must also that inference of santa must be at least as strong as any not fraudulent inference general conclusion reallocations and general allegations inclu statements are not sufficient fish circuit has ruled that in this case the only allegation is that defendants not even specific kane miller defendants acted with c enter period as paragraph two and three of them in i was not santa and that's actually turned out to be correct the other was one where he was recovering some money from insurance company but he said that had nothing to do it there was no c enter so he made these disclosures is no sin for there is  event and this fact was also withheld it's part of our vice our fraud cain miller represented intrepid and simmons in defense of an oil and gas investor fraud suit in mississippi mr parker that was also  withheld from us their website at the time said that they do litigation all over the gulf coast so they have a lot of contacts in mississippi we disagree with the fact that hannaman only reviewed the participation agreement we studied in paragraph one hundred seven of the first minute complaint that stephen hannaman prepared and emailed a prescription a subscription agreement and participation agreement to our client the case cries out for a trial because obviously there's a difference of opinion about that that we never got past the stage of twelve emotions so they're all over mississippi we did plead conspiracy and although the first brief may where you say c h has pleaded conspiracy to breach for do share duties a writ breeze i don't seek conspiracy raise other than in your reply brief as counsel ops it has said right let me speak to last causation briefly he mentioned bailey versus buck which is my case actually for you waive the conspiracy argument no i don't know why not because i do think that the brief as a  bailey vs burke had two non disclosures one was a prior judgment and one was that had entered into an instrument that possibly had the ability to keep the investors from being able to sell their interests those are the only omissions the omissions in this case include omitting to tell the two hundred million dollar rico judgment omitting to tell about the two major