Autotech alleges that the cessation of the note sales coincided with an announcement in February of 1997 that MeesPierson had been taken over by Fortis. It further alleges that immediately after the takeover, all of the MeesPierson officers and employees handling the Autotech financing project either resigned or were fired and were not replaced. Moreover, no new MeesPierson personnel were assigned to the project and the entire department that was handling the project was closed down. Autotech commenced this action on June 1, 1998. The fifth cause of action asserts that Fortis, Dutch Fortis and Belgian Fortis intentionally interfered with MeesPierson's performance of the agreements by causing all of the personnel of MeesPierson connected with the financing program to leave or be fired when MeesPierson was acquired by Fortis in 1997.
Defendants now move to dismiss the fifth cause of action for lack of jurisdiction.
They also move to dismiss this cause of action on the ground that it fails to state a claim. Specifically, they argue that Dutch Fortis and Belgian Fortis cannot be liable for interfering with MeesPierson's contracts because they have an economic interest in those contracts. Finally, they also assert that the complaint should be dismissed as against Fortis because it is not a legal entity capable of being sued. It is well settled that the burden of proving jurisdiction is on the party asserting it. The Court finds that Autotech is entitled to further discovery in order to determine whether Fortis, Dutch Fortis or Belgian Fortis is subject to jurisdiction in New York.