khan in illinois they did not contract with mr pyne in illinois they did not perform any part of the contract with mr conne the illinois or otherwise avail itself of the protections of the state of illinois all of its conduct in performing what it was contracted to do for mr conne occurred outside the state of illinois all of the entities involved in the transactions were formed under delaware law and none were formed under illinois law arguing the first well because that's what the case law says in terms of the test set forth in israel housing and other cases in this district and in other districts as well as the inquiry in and in  t both is ring housing and in electoral locks the court looks to that sort of the the expectations of the parties and choice of law informs election goes to expectation of parties where and my clients and the focus on joint venture is it necessary repackaging of their original arguments his original arguments were based upon trying to rope ram or c into illinois based upon a conspiracy a claim of conspiracy this court intellectual locks and other courts in illinois has said that conspiracy theory can't be used because you must focus on the acts of the defendant as to who age you're left with a plaintive mr khan who sought out mr sort of grammar c in new york and connecticut to provide certain raw materials that would be used in tax shelters and he wasn't a stranger to tax shelters he had done two previous tax shelters with medio and he'd known them for many years in fact he had known them prior to the existence of grammars so the claims of conspiracy in the joint venture particularly ironic given the fact that he had a longer relationship the negotiation three where was the contract form and for where is that where was the performance that takes place and finally is is in addition to the four party worried is there a choice of walk provision because as i said earlier various operating agreements that were formed by grammar c in connection with its fractional duties were formed under delaware law and delaware a choice of walk provisions so this case is very close to this court's precedent and state of israel housing where the israel housing the plaintiffs executed here in illinois and finally the contract contain choice of law provision and using housing providing for the for the choice of while the defendant's home state and those facts the court found personal jurisdiction is not law now the court's reasoning in a similar case the last two locks is also instructive to two our decision here in addition to a flat out rejection of a conspiracy theory which relates to the activity of a third party which the plaintiff claims has some relationship to the nonresident defendant just as intellectual locks here or the plaintiff is attempting to jury rig specific personal jurisdiction over grammar  cited the united states supreme court decision worldwide boasts wagon which held that contact with a form state will only conferred jurisdiction when the defendant himself had control over the geographic target and chose to direct his activities at the former state the unilateral entities of both of of those who claim some relationship with the nonresident defendant can't satisfy the requirements of contact with the former state united states supreme court or the electrolux decision which follows that and follows worldwide votes right because you're referring to the activity of a third party and the case law holds that for concerts you'll do process reasons to and for following the instructions of video on setting up the companies in delaware that that did those transactions so again the contracts did not contemplate ever traveling to illinois or transacting business in illinois all of the l l c is well perform their obligations outside of illinois at least one gram or c was involved and there is one situation of a briefing on a company called johnson j o n c t i o n or cio when i'm not sure and my adversaries make much of the fact that after grammar c was not no longer involved mr kahn moved junction back to illinois but anything johnston did in illinois was was after the fact after my client was was removed from any activity with mr com and again mr khan agreed sixteen times in writing that the choice of we have decided numerous cases establishing that even extensive communication with the former president in connection with a transaction is not sufficient alone to support personal jurisdiction in the in those cases we cite follow the supreme court's teaching and wal that the plaintiffs cannot be the only link between the defendant in the form and then the conduct and in self is conduct must time himself in the form and notably the court below did not of me even mention walden or or provide any analysis of waldron the cases cited by my adversaries and there are seven all deal with situations where a contract was formed or initiated here in illinois where products some made in illinois or services were performed in illinois so they're all distinguishable but ace that's the say a business is a different this is a different sort of business the cases that were cited what one how does just to to to to to pick one of the cases auto attack he relies on my adversary auto tech was a circuit court case where the circuit boards were manufactured here in illinois and the court held that essentially the at least part of the performance was in the state of illinois well similarly all of my fine points was outside the state of illinois mr pond came to an end it wouldn't be my client now obligation here in illinois just to know that one other job has looked at two other cases same arguments same evidence and come to that conclusion if you move to strike this argument before judge for judge ford said he was considering briefs before this court has you sealed the record for the trial court what i want to know is what is the authority for any of this what is the explanation for any of this  yes sealing everything i want to know what the authority is of this and what basis of your request well you are not seeking that here and as i said we've i'm asking for your justification if your past conduct so well  you did seek it at one point and succeeded he sought it or agreed to it front of judge court and succeeded i want to know what the basis is of this your honor i don't have that information now but i will certainly provide to the court well parties would produce documents because they claimed they related to other tax payers and they related to tax transactions and that under a federal statute and i don't i can't off the top of my head recall the primarily and so those documents constitute a lot of the evidence in the truck or in before this court and the protective protective order that they insisted upon in order to produce those documents read the report or i think i'm sorry they're the defendants here correct so they insisted on this protective order so they otherwise they're not going to produce documents that was that was what they said you're on how about then you default them well that's another possibility i mean we're talking about a pretty fundamental constitutional issue here come some of the courts are public fora and we need this court in particular has addressed this on multiple occasions that litigants don't have the right so in responding i think the place to start perhaps is a quote from the one of the br and the quote is in connection with the const hack shelter grammar she exchanged mail phone and electronic communications and payments with the cons in illinois and you might think that was robbery but that's actually from  page thirty of the briefs in both cases we think that alone is sufficient contact with the state of illinois it's important to note a most of michigan shays argument was directed at the breach of contract section subsection seven of your long arm statute but we moved also under the catchall and i think it becomes a very simple case when you look at what the contacts are  retaining counsel in illinois to assist them they dispute the meeting but besides that they don't dispute there were numerous phone calls with mr kahn in illinois where he's in illinois at which we allege are in which we allege the misrepresentations were made there are these numerous agreements that were made all of that and i think it is enough to call itself yes or if the misrepresentations are made in that receives a signing of the contract i think that's enough under due process i mean they get they get off on a theory of walden which i think is just wrong and in comprehensible if you actually meaningful way this is not a case where everything happened out of the stay there were numerous agreements sent to mr khan there were numerous phone calls with mr phone the agreements themselves  provide under a power of attorney provision for performance perhaps elsewhere but if the power of attorney doctrine was not our attorney provision was not in there then they would have been sending many this was relocated to illinois and grammar she retained an interest in it therefore grammar she had an interest in an illinois partnership with mr khan that is related to the transaction and most important because this roshi i don't really talk about it but these are tax transactions no doubt about the damages are the what happened with the i r s the assessment of taxes interest penalties and suffer the tax transactions include only when you file a tax return and you an individual mr khan and his wife can only follow a tax return when i take a one his phone issued to the which sets for the alleged losses are other than official tax treatment from the transaction grammar see in connection with the distress that transaction sent sixteen k once according to the record that it had the obligation under the various partnership agreements to make sure got prepared and to allocate losses and gains sixteen of those into the state of illinois with mr conne and that is the operative document that triggered the loss on a tax return that triggered the damages we're suing on what was their response at the trial level to that particular point because or now the k ones were prepared outside the state and therefore don't count when it's sending him into the state for the current signature right product that is that is their point and we just simply don't agree with it i think again it's based on a misreading of walden and the idea that that walden i don't know what would satisfy walden frankly under their analysis it sounds like unless grammar she came into the state once mr khan in the nose there is not a vision continuing and wide reaching contacts in the form state is proper that quote could have been lifted out of numerous opinions of this court and other other courts in illinois it also says to be sure the defendant's contacts with  stay maybe intertwined with the transactions or interactions with the plaintiff or other parties so that's what happened here the fact that they're sending something to con is a sure structurally relevant context the only thing wallendas doing is setting an outer barrier saying this particular set of facts where nothing at all ever happened in the state is not good enough and they say and he  that is not this case there are dozens of interactions with mr khan in the state of illinois and they all start with the agreement with video c and they all depended on grammar she's involvement because advisers grammar she asset management are partners in the various partnerships involved so it applies to all of them the others are all partner tall ships is the same so i think it applies to sing the distressed debt this transaction is a multi level partnership transaction involving ultimately the purchase of distressed debt and the grammar various of the grammar she energies the ones we sued were involved in different think it isn't and this article is not made which i think if they were going to make it they should have in the truck were this argument rooted seems very pretty basic stuff i don't think it was ever ever raised and of course if the court reaches the joint venture argument i think that wipes out everything and the joint venture argument just for sake of the record i don't recall any motion to strike and we put evidence into the record and the record evidence was unrebutted in the trial court request not to strike at the request i remember was let's take some more discovery which the court declined to allow so it's in the record and given that this is clearly a do novo review the court can consider if the court considers the joint venture theory it doesn't have to deal with walden or anything else that's the end of this no doubt b t o siegman with the numerous partners that revolve from chicago and its executive offices being in chicago at more than sufficient contacts to create your made in the briefing in this court was i'm sure on boxing that name but is is very very different on it's fact it was a contract to build a house in florida everything took place there literally the only thing happened in only thing that happened is your house that was what the contract was signed in illinois but it was all about florida the meetings took place in florida the contract to build it was contracted build a house in florida so on that's that's that's the case the key fact in that case as i recall there was no allegation of any activity purposefully directed at illinois and in this case if i'm siding to the rockies here are my notes and  in this case that's certainly not the case we're saying all of this was directed at illinois from the day they were informed agreements with video seed money and by the way in terms of the joint venture analysis if you read the  affidavit in the notes attached to it i think you'll find there is a not only a division of profits but you see they talk about having to put money up to to pay for certain expenses so that sounds like a an expense you're an arrangement too so i think it satisfies  joint venture test even if you want to apply it apply it strictly but from the day p t o and grammar she agreed they were going to jointly market these transactions to b d s clients and dispositive there's been no argument made in any of the briefing at any level that i recall about form selection clauses and i'm not aware of any and the contracts of the contact the idea that having a relationship with p t o siegmund doesn't necessarily tie them to illinois seems seems disingenuous of the record reflects it the agreements had to be approved by dennis field the c e o of the o c who was in chicago they sent their invoices to chicago and they were approved there whether or not they might have been paid out of somewhere else they were approved there there was a fellow named robert  other partners are involved in these transactions that are shown on the various email e mail exchanges so there's there's more than sufficient contact under cases like this need anything more than what we have think we have plenty so media discovery is continuing to be to proceed forward is to other parties to a limited extent some briefing is going forward on some motions as primarily   we cite many many cases that say that and i'll quote from the seventh circuit case in federal a federation of rural electric at thirty two of our three seven circuit it stated quote making telephone calls and facts of involves someone executing missed a house or person for a sale house in illinois and mailing it back and the relationship that was found to be not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction was based on phone mail and fax communications between the builder of the house and the buyer here in illinois so he's wrong the phone fax and mail are not sufficient if it's just communication between the partner in michigan the back office conduct of p t o is the activities of a third party and so where they process their payments whether in chicago or elsewhere is not relevant to the issue of specific personal jurisdiction over my clients  by the way he also misstated our position below for the judge for on the joint venture between the joint venture theory as i said in my opening remarks was after eight pages of briefing and only then did they come up with what they claim were five retaining an interest the fact is that it was an act of mr cotton to move johnson to illinois not an act of you remember under walter gives you already have the supreme court cases and this court's precedent in israel house you have to look at the actions of the dependent whether he entered the form of purposely but he mentioned retaining counsel in illinois this is dealt with at length in our brief we retain counsel in new york mcdermott will an emory corporate counsel they well i think your honor frankly he'd be hard pressed to do that as to as to any of them because that the l l c is themselves are all formed outside the most they would have done  is i don't know that your honor could and i don't know that my adversary have met their burden on any and they have been partially out because it's their burden as to each of those and it means and they haven't gone to the trouble they're just throwing a lot of money against the wall  mike trout i'm with oshea partners in mr sze part mr kennedy to correct this was driven by a video we have a separate litigation against video in connecticut they put us through probably three to five months of wrangling over protective order we had we had to go back and forth negotiating a motion under this tax statute that mr canada mentioned they just will not produce anything and alas they do what they feel is required under this federal statute so there is it is correct