The Hadley court noted that although Hadley was asserting the claims of GIC customer creditors, the GIC customers had never delegated their authority to pursue their claims to Hadley. The court went on to hold that bankruptcy trustee Hadley had failed to show that GIC, the bankrupt, had any possessory interest in those securities. The court recognized that several other jurisdictions had held that the bankruptcy trustee had standing to bring actions against third parties on behalf of creditors of the bankrupt. Accordingly, we hold that because plaintiff's claim here is not a property of the bankrupt estate, the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. Having determined that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims, we now consider whether the trial court has personal jurisdiction over defendants.
Personal jurisdiction involves a two-step analysis.
First, we determine whether the trial court has statutory authority to exercise jurisdiction and second, whether the exercise of jurisdiction violates constitutional due process. Here, plaintiff alleged that defendants, as the principal officers and directors and alter ego of Health Care, supplied Cal-Ban 3000 to defendant Prescott's Pharmacies in this State and that plaintiff's injuries were caused by his consumption of the product. The complaint also alleged that Health Care manufactured, marketed and distributed the drug. We now address the issue of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this instance is consistent with constitutional due process. We note initially that our long-arm statute is designed to confer jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the fullest extent possible under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.