FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 02 15 -PCH INVERSIONES MAR OC TAVA LIMITADA, MARC ELO GUILL ERMO TESTA, On Be ha lf o f The m se lv es an d All Oth ers Sim il arl y

Situa te d, SANTANDER INVESTOR GROUP, LEAD PLAINT IFFS , JUAN GONZALO PEREZ VALDE Z, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff s- App el la nt s, INTERNATIONAL H ARVESTER LIMITED, SAN JAVIER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l In te rv en or s- Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
vers us BANCO SANTANDER S.A., BANCO SANTANDER INTERNATIONA L, OPTIMAL INVESTMENT SERVICES S.A., PRIC EWATERHOUSECOOPERS, HSBC SEC URITIES SERVIC ES (IRELAND) LTD., etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st30 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT an d M ARTIN , Ci rcu itJu dg es , andDAW SON, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: App el la nt s, p la in ti ffs be fo re t he di st ric t co urt, ar e a g ro up of f or ei gn in ve st or s t ha t i nv es te d i n t wo fu nd s o rg an iz edun de r th e la ws o f th e Bah am as . All of th e ap pe ll an ts ’ tra ns act io ns were co nduc te d wi th co m pa ni es org an iz edun de r th e la ws o f fo rei gn co un tri es . The t wo Ba ha m ia n i nv es tm en t fu nd s, h owe ve r, in ve st edth ei r as se ts wit h B ern ardL. Mad of f. Mad of f, of co ur se , di d n otrun a le gi ti m at e in ve st m en t co m pa ny bu t i ns te adop erat eda po nz i s ch em e. Whe n t ha t
sc he m e unr av el le d, t he Bah am ia n fu nd s wen t b an krup t, an d t he ap pe ll an ts ’ in ve st m en ts were l os t. The pro cedur al hi st ory

of t hi s ca se is setfor th inde ta il in th e d is tri ctco urt’s th or ou gh op in io n. Fo r ou r pu rp os es , itis su ffi ci en t t o s ay th atth e p ro ceed in gs
were ev en tu al ly con so li da te d i nt o aMu lt i-Di st ric t Li ti ga ti on , whi ch was h el d i n

Honora ble Robert T. Da

wson, United States District J udg e for the Western District of * Arka nsas, sitting by

desig nation.
2th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a. Fo ll owi ng ex te ns iv e b rie fin g, t he di st ric t co urt

co nc lu de d t ha t i t l ack edpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er s ix de fen da nt s, an d fu rth er t ha t th e en ti re ca se was due to be di sm is se d u nd er the do ct rin e o f fo ru m no n
co nv en ie ns . App el la nt s ap pe al th es e d et erm in at io ns . Thi s C ou rt “ m ay

on ly rever se a di st ric t co urt's di sm is sa l b as edonforum no n
co nv en ie ns if i t co ns ti tu te s a c le ar ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Ald an a v . Del Mo nt e Fres h P ro du ce N.A., Inc ., 57 8 F .3d12 83 , 12 88 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Mem br en o v . Cos taCro ci ere S .p.A., 42 5 F .3d93 2, 9 35 -3 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ). It i s well set tl edth atab us e o f di sc ret io n re vi ew is “ ex tre m el y li m it ed ” an d “ hi gh ly de fere nt ia l.” Id . Whe n t hi s C ou rt e m pl oys th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n s tand ard , it

“ m us t af firm un le ss [it ] fin d[ s] th atth e d is tri ctco urt h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t, o r ha s ap pl ie d t he wron g l eg al st an da rd .” Id . (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Fraz ie r, 38 7 F .3d12 44 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc )). Upo n ath or ou gh rev ie w of t he bri efs an d t he di st ric t co urt’s o pi ni on , and wit h t he be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we h ol d t ha t t he ap pe ll an ts ha ve no t ca rri edth ei r he av y bu rd en to de m on st rat e th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n di sm is si ng onforum

no n c on ve ni en s g ro un ds . Rath er, t he co urt co m m it te d n o
erro rs of ju dg m en t, cl ear o r ot he rwis e, no r di d i t ap pl y th e wro ng leg al st an da rd
. See Al da na , 57 8 F .3dat 1 28 8. We th us sh are t he di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on “ th at
3Irel an d i s an ad equa te alt ern at iv e fo ru m an d t ha t t he rel ev an t p riv at e an d p ub li c fact or s wei gh st ro ng ly in fa vo r of forum no n c on ve ni en s d is m is sa l i n fa vo r of Irel an d,” an d a ffi rm . 1 AFFIRMED

Be cause we may

aff irm on any

g round supported in the r ecor d, we do not re ach the 1 district court’s c onclusions reg ardingpersona l jurisdiction. S ee I ronworke rs L ocal Union 68 v. AstraZ enec a Pharms., L P, 634 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2011). 4