Source: https://casetext.com/brief/ebd4c637-mashreqbank-psc-appellantvahmed-hamad-a1-gosaibi-brothers-company-respondent-ahmed-hamad-al-gosaibi-brothers-company-third-party-respondent-v-maan-abdul-waheed-al-sanea-third-party-appellant-awal-bank-bsc-third-party-defendant-brief-3
Timestamp: 2020-06-05 06:40:26
Document Index: 610065834

Matched Legal Cases: ['Arts4', 'in Fine', '§362', '§1782', '§ 202', '§ 362', '§ 1782', '§ 202', 'Arts4', 'in Fine', '§ 600']

ReadReadCited AuthoritiesCited Authorities87
APL-2013-00007 To Be Argued By: ROBERT F. SERIG TIME REQUESTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: 15 MINUTES Afetu p0ork 6tate 6'upreme Ctourt fppellate !Bibioion - Jfir~t Mepartment New York County Clerk's Index No. 601650/2009 MASHREQBANK PSC, PlaintiffR4espondent, -against- AHMED HAMAD AL GOSAIBI & BROTHERS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. New York County Clerk's Index No. 590643/2009 AHMED HAMAD AL GOSAIBI & BROTHERS COMPANY, Third-Party PlaintiffAppellant, -against- MAAN ABDUL WAHEED AL SANEA, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, - and- AWAL BANK BSC, Third-Party Defendant. BRIEF OF TIHRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT GiBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant-Respondent 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10 166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 rserio@gpibsondunn.com Of Counsel: Gabriel Henrmann Dated: December 7, 2011 Reproduced on Recycled Paper TABLE OF CONTENTS Page COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................ 1 NATURE OF THE CASE................................................................ 2 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................. 8 A. The Dispute in Saudi Arabia .............................................. 8 B. AHAB Propounds Allegations of Mr. AJ-Sanea's Purported Fraud in Other Proceedings Outside of Saudi Arabia ................ 10 C. This Case and Its Lack of Any Connection to New York............ 12 D. The Proceedings Below................................................... 15 ARGUMENT............................................................................. 17 1. THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FOR UMNON CONVENIENS ............................. 17 A. AHAB's Threshold Procedural Arguments Regarding the Trial Court's Supposed Lack of Authority to Dismiss this Case Are Nothing But Lawyer Makeweights ..................................... 20 1 . There Was No Improper Sua Sponte Action Below .......... 20 2. The Trial Court Was Not Obliged to Hear the Third-Party Claims as "Inseparably Connected" to the First-Party Claims............................................................... 24 B. All of the Traditional Forum Non Conveniens Factors Support Dismissal................................................................... 26 1 . None of the Parties Resides in New York ..................... 26 2. The Relevant Events Occurred in the Middle East............ 26 3. Dismissal Serves the Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses ........................................................... 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 4. This Case Would Require the Court to Apply Saudi and UAE Law.......................................................... 34 5. Hearing This Case in New York Would Impose an Undue Burden on the Court ..................................... 38 6. Saudi Arabia and the UAE Offer Superior Alternative Fora for Resolving This Dispute ................................ 39 i. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAIE Are Adequate and Available................................................... 40 ii. Although Not Necessary, the Entire Case Can Be Heard in a Single Alternative Forum ................... 42 7. Saudi Arabia Has a Keen Interest in This Dispute ........... 43 8. New York Has Virtually No Interest in This Dispute ........ 44 II. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED AHAB'S REQUEST FOR FORUM-RELATED DISCOVERY..................................... 48 Ill. ALTERNATELY, THE TRIAL COURT COULD AND SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS AGAINST MR. AL-SANEA FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION .............. 50 CONCLUSION......................................................................... 54 PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT..................................... 55 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases A &M Exports, Ltd. v. Meridien Int'l Bank, Ltd., 207 A.D.2d 741 (1lst Dep't 1994)........................................ 18, 27,28,44 Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Bros. Co. v. Standard Chartered Int'l (USA) Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 8080, 2011 WL 1900695 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2011)............ 12,33 Alberta & Orient Glycol Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., Index No. 603 150/05, 2007 WL 6881693 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 24 ,2007).................................................. 39 Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Ins. Corp. of Ireland, 603 F. Supp. 636 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ................................................... 25 Andrews v. Trustco Bank, Nat 'I Assn'i, 289 A.D.2d 910 (3d Dep't 2001) ..................................................... 48 AroChem nt '1, Inc. v. Buirkie, 968 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 1992)........................................................... 35 Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock, 54 A.D.3d 286 (1st Dep't 2008), affd, 12 N.Y.3d 846 (2009)........................................................... 48 AtIsco Ltd. v. Swanson, 29 A.D.3 d 465 (1 AtDep't 2006) ...................................................... 36 Banco do Estado de Sao Paulo S.A. v. Mendes Jr. Int'l Co., 249 A.D.2d 137 (1lAtDep't 1998)..................................................... 21 Banco Nacional Ultramarino, S.A. v. Chan, 169 Misc. 2d 182 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1996), aff'd sub nom. Banco Nacional Lf7ramarino, S.A. v. Moneycenter Trust Co., 240 A.D.2d 253 (1st Dep't 1997) ......................................... 5, 45, 46, 47 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) Beekmnans v. .JP. Morgan & Co., 945 F. Supp. 90 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)..................................................... 49 Bewers v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 99 A.D.2d 949 (1 st Dep't), affd, 64 N.Y.2d 630 (1984)........................................................... 34 Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1993)........................................................... 42 Caviam Bus. Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 08 Civ. 2255, 2009 WL 667272 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009).................. 34 Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Metals Holding Corp., 45 A.D.3d 361 (1st Dep't 2007) ...................................................... 39 Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. M.'etals Holding Corp., Index. No. 604205/05, 2006 WL 1594442 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 8, 2006), aff'd, 45 A.D.3d 361 (1st Dep't 2007)............................................... 44 Copp v. Ramirez, 62 A.D.3d 23 (1st Dep't 2009)........................................................ 50 de Capriles v. Lopez Lugo, 293 A.D.2d 405 (1st Dep't 2002)..................................................... 50 de Enamorado v. Cent. Am. S.S. Agency, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 182 (1lAtDep't 1990)..................................................... 49 Doherty v. City of New York, 24 A.D.3d 275 (1lAtDep't 2005) ...................................................... 48 Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982).................................................................... 37 Excel Shipping Corp. v. Seatrain Int'l S.A., 584 F. Supp. 734 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) ................................................... 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) Faravelli v. Bankers Trust Co.,, 85 A.D.2d 33 5 (1lAtDep't 1982) ...................................................... 52 First Union Nat'l Bank v. Paribas, 135 F. Supp. 2d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)............................................. 6,46 Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 885 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1989).......................................................... 40 Garmendia v. 0O'Neill, 46 A.D.3d 361 (1st Dep't 2007) ............................................. 30, 43, 49 Globalvest Mgmt. Co. v. Citibank, N.A., Index No. 6033 86/04, 2005 WL 1148687 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. May 12,2005) ...................................... 7, 34, 37,41 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,' 330 U.S. 501 (1947).................................................................... 34 Hakim Consultants Ltd v. Formosa Ltd, 175 A.D.2d 759 (1lAtDep't 199 1)..................................................... 50 Hart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 129 A.D.2d 179 (1st Dep't 1987)..................................................... 36 Hormel Int'l Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 55 A.D.2d 905 (2d Dep't 1977)....................................................... 31 Howard v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd, No. 96 Civ. 4587, 1997 WL 107633 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 1997).................. 31 Hubbard, Westervelt & Mottelay, Inc. v. Harsh Bldg. Co., 28 A.D.2d 295 (1lst Dep't 1967) ...................................................... 51 Imperial Imps. Co. v. Hugo Neu & Sons, 161 A.D.2d 411 (1lst Dep't 1990)..................................................... 21 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) In re Air Crash Near Nantucket Island, No. 00-MDL-1344, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16085 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16,2004)............................................................ 25 In re Bancredit Cayman, Ltd., No. 06-11026, 2008 WL 5396618 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008) ........... 33 In re Bernz (Widschi), 13 9 A.D.2d 444 (1lst Dep't 1988)..................................................... 24 Indosuez Int'l Fin. B. V v. Nat 'I Reserve Bank, 279 A.D.2d 408 (1 st Dep't 200 1), affd, 98 N.Y.2d 238 (2002)........................................................... 46 Ins. Co. offN. Am. v. Emcor Grp., Inc., 9 A.D.3d 319 (1st Dep't 2004)........................................................ 53 Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474 (1984)............................................ 17, 18,26,28,38,40 Istim, Inc. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 342 (1991) ............................................................. 34, 35 J Zeevi & Sons, Ltd. v. Grindlays Bank (Uganda) Ltd, 37 N.Y.2d 220 (1975) .......................................................... 5, 45, 46 Jeha v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 751 F. Supp. 122 (S.D. Tex. 1990) ................................................... 40 Johnson v. Ward, 4 N.Y.3d 516 (2005) ................................................................... 51 Kamel v. Hill-Rom Company, Inc., 108 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1997).......................................................... 40 Karabu Corp. v. Gitner, 16 F.Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).................................................. 52 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) Kearns v. Johnson,, 23 8 A.D.2d 121 (1lAtDep't 1997)..................................................... 22 Kissimmee Mem 'I Hosp. v. Wilson, 188 A.D.2d 802 (3d Dep't 1992) ..................................................... 25 Kraft v. Trs. of Sailors 'Snug Harbor, 31 A.D.2d 918 (1lAtDep't 1969) ...................................................... 50 M Katz & Son Billiard Prods., Inc. v. G. Coreale & Sons, Inc., 26 A.D.2d 52 (1st Dep't 1966), afd, 20 N.Y.2d 903 (1967) .................... 51 Martin v. Mieth, 3 5 N.Y.2d 414, 418 (1974) ............................................................ 17 Mensah v. Moxley, 235 A.D.2d 910 (3d Dep't 1997) ..................................................... 18 Murray v. British Broad. Corp., 81 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................................ 31 N Valley Partners, LLC, v. Jenkins, Index No. 101957/08, 2009 WL 1058162 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 14, 2009).................................................. 52 Nasser v. Nasser, 52 A.D.3d 306 (1st Dep't 2008) ...................................................... 30 Navallo v. Am. Standard, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 599 (2d Dep't 1996) ..................................................... 36 Nemetsky v. Ban que de Developpement de la Republique du Niger, 64 A.D.2d 694 (2d Dep't 1978)....................................................... 52 Nguyen v. Banque Indosuez, 19 A.D.3 d 292 (1st Dep't 2005).................................................. 17, 26 Olympic Corp. v. Societe Generale, 462 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1972)........................................................... 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) Otor, S.A. v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A., No. 04 Civ. 6978, 2006 WL 2613 775 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006)...*............. 49 P. T Delami Garment Indus. v. Cassa di Risparmio di Torino, 164 Msc. 2d 38 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1994) ........................................ 44 Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 650 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1981) ................................................... 8, 30, 42 Payne v. Jumeirah Hospitality & Leisure (USA), Inc., 83 A.D.3 d 5 18 (1 st Dep't 201 1) ...................................................... 17 Perkow v. Frank W Winne & Sons, 36 A.D.3d 1189 (3d Dep't 2007) ..................................................... 25 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) ........................................................... 40, 41, 49 Republic of Lebanon v. Sotheby 's, 167 A.D.2d 142 (1st Dep't 1990)..................................................... 42 Richbell Info. Servs., Inc. v. Jupiter Partners, 3 2 A.D.3 d 15 0 (1 st Dep't 2006) ...................................................... 50 Roddy v. Schmidt, 57 N.Y.2d 979 (1982).................................................................. 51 Russeck Fine Art Grp. v. Theodore B. Donson, Ltd., Index No. 60 1339/06, 2008 WE 2762944 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 27, 2008).................................................. 53 Schultz v. Boy Scouts ofAm., 65 N.Y.2d 189 (1985).................................................................. 35 Schwartz v. Wikier, 31 A.D.2d 755 (2d Dep't 1969)....................................................... 50 Sears Tooth v. Georgiou, 69 A.D.3d 464 (1st Dep't 2010) ...................................................... 23 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) Sem i-Conductor Materials, Inc. v. Citibank Int'l PLC, 969 F. Supp. 243 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ................................................... 52 Shiboleth v. Yerushalmi, 268 A.D.2d 3 00 (1st Dep't 2000)............................................ 21, 24,P40 Shields v. Mi Ryung Constr. Co., 508 F. Supp. 891 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ................................................... 40 Shin-Etsu Chem. Co. v. ICICI Bank, Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 171 (1 st Dep't 2004) ...................................... 18, 34,40,41,43 Silver Lane Advisors LLC v. Bellatore LLC, Index No. 600668/09., 2009 WE 2045513 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. July 6, 2009)............................................... 26,30 Silver v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356 (1972) ............................................................. 17,48 Simon v. Philip Morris, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 46 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)................................................. 35 SNS Bank, N V v. Citibank, NA., 7 A.D.3d 352 (1st Dep't 2004)........................................................ 53 Sosa v. Cumberland Swan, Inc., 2 10 A.D.2d 156 (1st Dep't 1994)..................................................... 20 Sfravalle v. Land Cargo, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 735 (2d Dep't 2007)....................................................... 24 Tilleke & Gibb ins Int'l Ltd. v. Baker & McKenzie, 3 02 A.D.2d 3 28 (1st Dep't 2003)..................................................... 34 Tinicum Props. Assocs. Ltd. P ship v. Garnett, Civ. A. No. 92-0860, 1992 WE 99590 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 1992)................. 31 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) Todtman, Young, Tunick, Nachamie, Hendler, Spizz & Drogin, P. C. v. Richardson,, 231 A.D.2d 1 (1lst Dep't 1997)........................................................ 23 Troni v. Banca Popolare Di Milano, 129 A.D.2d 502 (1 st Dep't 1987)..................................................... 38 Van Deventer v. CS SCF Mgmt. Ltd., 37 A.D.3d 280 (1 st Dep't 2007) ...................................................... 25 VSL Corp v. Dunes Hotels & Casinos, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 948 (1988).................................................................. 23 Warck-Meister v. Diana Lowenstein Fine Arts, 7 A.D.3d 351 (lst Dep't 2004)........................................................ 51 Waterways Ltd. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 174 A.D.2d 324 (1lst Dep't 199 1)..................................................... 42 Wells Fargo Asia Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A., 93 6 F.2d 723 (2d Cit. 199 1)........................................................... 46 Wentzel v. Allen Mach., Inc.,. 277 A.D.2d 446 (2d Dep't 2000) ..................................................... 19 World Point Trading PTE, Ltd. v. Credito -Italiano, 225 A.D.2d 153(lst Dep't 1996)................................ 18,27,28,32,39,44 Statutes 11 U.S.C. §362 ........................................................................... 10 28 U.S.C. §1782.......................................................................... 12 CPLR 1008 ............................................................................... 22 CPLR 2001 ............................................................................... 23 CPLR 32(a)(1) ........................................................................... 51 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) CPLR 302(a)(2)....................................................................... 46, 51 CPLR 3103(a)............................................................................. 48 CPLR 3106(a)............................................................................. 50 CPLR 3211 (d)............................................................................. 49 CPLR 3214(b)............................................................................. 48 CPLR 327................................................................................ 17 CPLR 327(a).......................................................................... 17,21 Rules 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 202.70(g) (Rule of Practice 11I(d)).................................. 48 Third-Party Defendant-Respondent Maan Abdul Wahed Al-S anea ("Mr. Al- Sanea") respectfully submits this brief in opposition to the appeal of Defendant- Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant Abmad Hamad Algosaibi & Brothers Co. ("AHAB") seeking reversal of an order and judgment of the trial court below, which dismissed the case below in its entirety on forum non conveniens grounds, including the first-party action commenced by Plaintiff-Respondent Mashreqbank PSC ("Mashreq"') and AHAB's third-party action against Mr. Al-Sanea. COUJ1TERSTATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1 . Whether the trial court properly grantedforum non conveniens dismissal of this case, in which the parties are based in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Dubai; the dispute raises issues of foreign law; the key evidence and witnesses are located primarily overseas, including in Saudi Arabia; the Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff has commenced multiple duplicative proceedings in other jurisdictions involving the same allegations; and there are adequate and available alternative fora in which the claims at issue can be litigated? The trial court properly granted dismissal. 2. Whether the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying Third-Party Plaintiff s pre-answer demand to conduct forum-related discovery in Saudi Arabia, given the strength of the case for forum non conveniens dismissal? The trial court properly denied the requested discovery. 3. Whether the trial court erred in finding that personal jurisdiction could be exercised over the Third-Party Defendant based solely on allegations that, operating from outside of New York, he directed supposedly unauthorized transactions in Third-Party Plaintiff s name that happened to involve the use of New York correspondent bank accounts? The trial court erred in asserting jurisdiction over the Third-Party Defendant, and should have dismissed the third-party claims on that additional ground. NATURE OF THE CASE AHAB's dispute with Mr. Al-Sanea never had any business being litigated in New York, and the trial court properly dismissed the action below in its entirety on forumn non conveniens grounds. The parties are all based in the Middle East (AH{AB and Mr. Al-Sanea in Saudi Arabia, Mashreq in Dubai), none of them has any relevant presence in New York (or the United States), and none of the alleged acts of misconduct transpired in New York (or the United States). The trial court appropriately "weighed" the factors bearing onforum non conveniens analysis and correctly concluded that "the factors under consideration weigh in favor of granting Al Sanea's motion to dismiss the complaints." R.23-24. Although AHAB was not the first party to file in New York, it is now the only party that wants to stay here. Mashreq initially commenced suit against AHAB in New York, after AHAB defaulted on a foreign-exchange transaction, in the hope that assets might be found in AHIAB's accounts in New York (as it turns out,, they were not). But AHAB, for its part, had just defaulted on billions of dollars of liabilities to financial institutions around the world, and was busy devising a strategy to foist the blame for all of its financial woes-including its obligation to Mashreq--on Mr. Al-Sanea, a former AHAB executive and an in-law of the AHAB partners who were responsible for managing AH-AB's affairs. Rather than accepting responsibility for its financial straits, AHAB concocted a claim that Mr. Al-Sanea had somehow wielded surreptitious control over AH-AB's affairs and caused the company to take on billions of dollars of unauthorized debt-which he then supposedly diverted to his own uses-without AHAB's partners ever discovering any of these billions of dollars of borrowings. Beginning in May 2009, AHAB launched a worldwide litigation campaign against Mr. AI-Sanea in an effort to avoid its debts, asserting claims such as fraud, forgery, and breach of fiduciary duty-both at home, in complaints to officials at the highest levels of the Saudi government, and in several far-flung jurisdictions abroad. AHAB seized upon Mashreq's New York action as a toehold from which to further that campaign by filing third-party claims against Mr. Al-Sanea. Here in New York, AHAB alleged a multi-billion dollar fraud by Mr. Al-Sanea, but sought recovery only on a $150 million slice of that overarching supposed fraud. Thus, as the trial court recognized, R. 19-24, AHAB'Is claims against Mr. Al- Sanea here are only a tiny subset of a much larger dispute between the Saudi owners of two related, family-owned Saudi business concerns, headquartered less than two miles apart in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia. AHAB's allegations here have been duplicated in proceedings before a special committee empaneled by the Saudi Government (the "Saudi Committee"), in submissions to Bahraini, Swiss, and other criminal authorities, and in parallel civil litigation against Mr. Al-Sanea commenced by AHAB in the Cayman Islands-where AHAB seeks recovery of the full $10 billion of its alleged damages, including the $150 million claimed here-and the U.K. In the course of this worldwide forum-shopping spree, AHAB has sought to avail itself of every procedural advantage under the sun-including by obtaining, in 2009, worldwide asset-freezing orders from Cayman and U.K. courts that a New York court would never issue. Through this New York suit, AHAB apparently seeks, among other things, to obtain expansive discovery not available elsewhere. But AHAB's case here lacks any significant connection to New York, and therefore was properly dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. New York has no relevant contacts with the parties or alleged misconduct at issue. Mr. Al-Sanea and AHAB both reside in Saudi Arabia, and any unauthorized conduct Mr. Al-Sanea allegedly undertook in AHAB's name transpired, if at all, in Saudi Arabia. Third-Party-Defendant Awal Bank BSC resides in Bahrain, as does AHAB's banking subsidiary, The International Banking Corporation ("TIBC"). None of them has any offices or employees in New York or conducts any business here. Mashreq is based in Dubai, and its claims against AHAB derive from AHAB's failure to pay Saudi riyals into Mashreq's account in Saudi Arabia, pursuant to an agreement negotiated overseas. AHAB's sole claim to New York nexus is that the $150 million Mashreq paid to AHAB in connection with this transaction passed through two New York 4"correspondent" bank accounts (neither of which is owned by Mr. Al-Sanea) en route from one Middle Eastern entity to another. Of course, this would be true of virtually any large-volume foreign-exchange transaction involving dollars. Yet AHAB claims that this incidental connection somehow implicates New York's "6paramount"' interest in regulating the New York banking system, which supposedly should have obligated the trial court to hear the case notwithstanding the compelling grounds for forum non conveniens dismissal. That simply is not the law. AHAB relies on language from two cases, J Zeevi & Sons, Ltd. v. Grindlays Bank (Uganda) Ltd., 37 N.Y.2d 220 (1975), and Banco Nacional Ultramarino, S.A. v. Chan, 169 Misc. 2d 182 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1996), affd sub nom. Banco Nacional Ultramarino, S.A. v. Moneycenter Trust Co., 240 A.D.2d 253 (1 st Dep't 1997), that involved choice-of-law or personal jurisdiction issues-not forum non conveniens. Indeed, the supposedly "paramount" New York interest AHAB finds in these cases "is not a trump to be played whenever a party to such a transaction seeks to use our courts for a lawsuit with little or no apparent contact with New York or the United States." First Union Nat'l Bank v. Paribas, 135 F. Supp. 2d 443, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). AHAB claims this is a case about Mr. Al-Sanea's alleged "abuse" of the New York banking system, but whether New York's banks were "abused" or simply used here is a debate that can be resolved only by evidence concerning events that transpired in Saudi Arabia-where AHAB and Mr. A1-Sanea do business-and that are governed by Saudi law. The trial court prudently exercised its discretionary authority to dismiss the case in its entirety. Every one of the traditional forum non conveniens factors demonstrates how utterly inappropriate a forum New York would be: None of the parties resides here; none of the alleged misconduct took place here; litigation here will severely burden the Court, parties, and key witnesses (none of whom resides here); the Court will be forced to interpret and apply Saudi and UAE law; and Saudi Arabia and the UAE offer available and adequate alternate fora. Indeed, Saudi Arabia is a far more appropriate forum than New York-one whose paramount interest in resolving this dispute between two prominent Saudi families and their respective businesses weighs heavily in favor of dismissal. On appeal, AH-AB also makes several procedural arguments for reversal, but none rises above the level of lawyer makeweight. AHAB wrongly claims (for the first time on appeal) that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss Mashreq' s action on a motion initiated by Mr. Al-Sanea, even though dismissal of the entire case was raised in open court by both Mr. Al-S anea and the trial judge, all parties were afforded an opportunity to brief that issue, and Mashreq consented to dismissal of its first-party claims. AHAB is also wrong in arguing that the trial court could not have granted dismissal of its third-party claims while retaining jurisdiction over the first-party action; although the trial court concluded that it was best to dismiss the entire case, it clearly could have severed the action and dismissed the third-party claims against Mr. Al-Sanea. AHAB further claims its action must be heard here for efficiency reasons, and that the foreign fora available to AHAB are not "adequate" because New York would afford AHAB more favorable discovery and evidentiary rules. That is not the case, either on the facts or on the law. Adjudication of AHAB's case here would only add to the number of AHAB's duplicative proceedings-there is no other proceeding AHAB proposes to withdraw if this case is reinstated. Moreover, a party's inability to "obtain expansive U.S.-style discovery" or secure perceived procedural advantages in another forum "do[es] not render the forum inadequate." GlobalvestMgmt. Co. v. Citibank, N.A., Index No. 603386/04, 2005 WLT 1148687, at *9 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnity. May 12, 2005); accord Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 650 F.2d 408, 415 (2d Cir. 1981); id. at 416 (Maletz, J., dissenting). AHAB's additional claim that the trial court somehow acted improperly in refusing AHAB's request for forum-related discovery also lacks merit, and should be disregarded. Separate from the compelling grounds supporting the trial court's ruling onforum non conveniens, the trial court erred in finding jurisdiction over Mr. Al-Sanea, and that error provides an alternative basis for affirming the judgment below insofar as it dismissed the third-party claims against him. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment should be affirmed. COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Dispute in Saudi Arabia This case involves a dispute between Mr. Al-Sanea and his in-laws, members of Saudi Arabia's prominent Algosaibi family. The Algosaibis own AHAB, a partnership based in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia. R. 107-08, R.618-20. Among AHAB's constituent entities is its subsidiary TIBC, a Bahraini bank. R. 13. Mr. AI-Sanea is married to Madame Sana Algosaibi, a member of the AHAB family partnership (who plays no role in the management of AHAB's affairs). R.618. Mr. Al-Sanea is a citizen and resident of Saudi Arabia. R.617-18. AHAB alleges that he was a "senior executive of AHAB's financial service division, the Money Exchange." R. 104. He is also "the Chairman of a group of companies known as the Saad Group," R.108, which is headquartered in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia. R.6 18. He indirectly held a majority ownership interest in Awal Bank, a bank "headquartered and licensed in the Kingdom of Bahrain." R. 108. Any work Mr. Al-Sanea undertook for AHAB, including for the Money Exchange, was conducted in Al Khobar. R.620. In 2009, during the throes of the worldwide financial crisis, AHAB and other Algosaibi businesses defaulted on some $ 10 billion in obligations to more than one hundred creditors around the world, including Mashreq, a bank organized and headquartered in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). R. 19, R.50, R. 109, R.98 1. When those creditors sued,, AH-AB made outlandish complaints against Mr. Al-Sanea-first in Saudi Arabia, and then in Bahrain and elsewhere- seeking to blame M\r. Al-Sanea for its financial woes by claiming that he caused AHAB's employees to borrow $10 billion in AHAB's name, over many years, without AHAB's knowledge or authorization. R. 104-07, R.620-22. In AH-AB's native Saudi Arabia,, the Algosaibi family lodged complaints against Mr. Al-Sanea with the Saudi government. R.620-2 1. In an effort to investigate and resolve the parties' dispute, the Saudi government formed the Saudi Committee of prominent government officials-including the Saudi Attorney General, three judges, and representatives of the. Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, the Capital Market Authority, the Fraud Division of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Commerce, and the Ministry of Justice. R.620-2 1. B. AHAB Propounds Allegations of Mr. A1-Sanea's Purported Fraud in Other Proceedings Outside of Saudi Arabia Members of the Algosaibi family also filed criminal complaints against Mr. Al-Sarica and others with the Bahraini government. R. 190-99, R.621. The Bahraini Public Prosecutor's office commenced an investigation in response to those complaints.1 R.621. The Central Bank of Bahrain also appointed administrators over the affairs of Awal Bank and TIBC.2 R.221-27, R.622. Less than two weeks after it filed its third-party claims in this case, AHAB also sued Mr. Al-Sanea, and several Saad Group entities, in the Cayman Islands. R.261-72, R.622. That action alleges that Mr. A1-Sanea engaged in a scheme to defraud AHAB that includes the same allegedly unauthorized transaction for which AHAB seeks recovery here, as well as numerous other alleged acts of misfeasance by Mr. Al-Sanea. R.622. In the Cayman action, AHAB seeks a recovery 1Since the trial court rendered its decision below, the Public Prosecutor has filed charges in Bahrain's Third Lower Criminal Court against Mr. Al-Sanea and thirteen personnel of Awal Bank and TIBC. Those charges concern only minor alleged violations in the nature of misdemeanor charges, not any charges of fraud, money laundering, or forgery. 2 Awal Bank's administrator filed a petition under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking intervention by the United States Bankruptcy Court in aid of foreign insolvency proceedings. That application was granted, resulting in a stay of this action as against Awal Bank. R.258-60; see I11 U.S.C. § 362. approaching the full $ 10 billion amount it allegedly lost as a result of the purported fraud, including the value of the Mashreq transaction at issue in this case. R.273- 89. AHAB obtained from that court an exparte "worldwide freezing order" barring Mr. Al-Sanea from undertaking certain asset transfers during the pendency of that case. Id. (AHAB subsequently obtained an extension of that freezing order from a U.K. court. R.577-78, R.982) Additionally, AHAB sought to raise its allegations against Mr. A1-Sanea defensively in a series of consolidated actions commenced against it in the U.K. by foreign financial institutions seeking to enforce obligations on which AHAB has defaulted. R.978-82. AHAB asserted there that it was not liable for those borrowings for the same reasons that underlie its claims against Mr. Al-S anea here and in the Cayman Islands-that Mr. Al-Sanea supposedly entered into those obligations in AHAB's name but without AHAB's knowledge or authorization. AHAB also recently filed suit in a California federal court against one of Mr. Al-Sanea's alleged "primary co-conspirators," Glenn Stewart, the formner CEO of TIBC, for allegedly aiding and abetting Mr. Al-Sanea's purported fraud. AHAB Br. at 32-33 & n.22, 46. AHAB seeks recovery from Mr. Stewart of virtually the entire $ 10 billion it allegedly lost as a result of Mr. AI-Sanea' s purported fraud. Since the trial court's dismissal of the case below, AHAB has also capitalized on its allegations against Mr. Al-Sanea to obtain an order from a federal court in New York authorizing AHAB to take discovery in aid of foreign proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, from several New York banks alleged to have information relating to its allegations against Mr. Al-Sanea-including HSBC and Bank of America, which maintained the correspondent accounts at issue here. See Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Bros. Co. v. Standard Chartered Int'l (USA) Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 8080, 2011 WL 1900695, at *5..*6 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2011). That court granted the application based on AHAB's claim that it needed discovery from the banks in aid of (1) AHAB's Cayman suit against Mr. Al-Sanca, and (2) AHAB's defense of two pending suits in Saudi Arabia brought by the independent administrator of TIBC. Id. at *2..*3. C. This Case and Its Lack of Any Connection to New York AHAB's claims against Mvr. Al-Sanea in this suit followed the Algosaibi family's actions in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and preceded the Cayman action by less than two weeks. Asserting the same core allegations of fraud, forgery, and unauthorized conduct by Mr. Al-Sanea, they arise as third-party claims relating to Mashreq's underlying suit against AHAB, which seeks recovery for the alleged breach of a $150 million-for-564,300,000 Saudi riyal currency-exchange agreement. R. 104. The Masbreq transaction was a U.S. dollar for Saudi riyal swap. Under well-established international banking practices, such large-volume transactions involving a U.S.-dollar component conducted by non-members of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (such as the foreign banks at issue here) typically must clear through a New York-based correspondent account with access to the Clearing House Interbank Payment System ("CHIPS"). CHIPS is "the international private clearing system for large dollar transfers," which "means that all wholesale international transactions involving the use of the dollar go through CIHPS.",3 Otherwise, the transactions at issue here had no New York connection. The counterparties were both Middle Eastern entities. Mashreq alleges that it executed its leg of the swap but that AHAB breached by failing to perform its half: a payment of Saudi riyals to Mashreq' s account in Saudi Arabia. R. 104, R. 125, R.139. Mashreq sued both AHAB and AHAB's partners in New York. On July 15, 2009, AHAB answered the Mashreq Action and commenced this Third-Party Action against Mr. Al-Sanea and Awal Bank, and it subsequently amended its pleading on August 26, 2009. R.75-120, R.142-70. The Third-Party Complaint alleged that Mr. Al-Sanea "ran" the AHAB division in Saudi Arabia that entered into the Mashreq transaction; that he somehow directed AHAB' s own 3 R.466-72 (EDMUND M. A. KWAW, THE LAW & PRACTICE OF OFFSHORE BANKING & FINANCE 15-21 (1996)); see R.492-94 (TAKATOSHI ITO ETAL., INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS: DEVELOPMENTS, PROSPECTS, AND KEY POLICY ISSUES 13 0-32 (1996)); R.504-73 (Richard Hooley and John Taylor, Payment by Funds Transfer, in THE LAW OF BANK PAYMENTS 49-185 (Michael Brindle & Raymond Cox eds. 2004)). employees to defraud it by "causing" the company to enter into the Mashreq transaction, among others; that he improperly transferred the transaction proceeds to an AHAB account at Awal Bank; and that Awal Bank refused to honor AHAB's demands for payment of its funds on account.4 R. 104-10, R. 12-14, R. 116. Asserting causes of action for indemnity, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and fraud, AHAB sought to recover the amount of any judgment Mashreq might obtain against AHAB, along with costs and punitive damages of $1 billion. R. 14-20. It did not seek to recover any other portion of the $10 billion AHAB allegzedly lost as a result of Mr. Al-Sanea' s purported misconduct in Saudi Arabia. AHAB does not allege that any of Mr. Al-Sanea's supposed misconduct took place in New York. Nor could it credibly do so. Mr. Al-Sanea has no relevant connections to New York. He lives and works in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, he has not been to New York since 2000, has not traveled to New York or communicated with any person located in New York in connection with any of the alleged transactions at issue, and maintains no personal bank account in New York 4 AHAB's amended pleading also asserted counterclaims against Mashreq in an effort to defeat Mashreq's motion for an attachment. R.87-1 03, R.239-41. Those counterclaims, obviously pleaded only for strategic reasons, merely assert in conclusory fashion that Mashreq "knew or was willfully blind to" Mr. Al-Sanea's alleged misconduct. that was ever used in connection with any transaction involving AHAB or Mashreq. R.61 8-20. Awal Bank is neither chartered, headquartered, nor authorized to do business as a foreign corporation in New York, and neither Awal Bank nor Mr. Al-Sanca has maintained any offices or real property in New York at any time relevant to AHAB's claims. R.618-19. AHAB allegedly was denied access to its funds upon demand made to Awal Bank, a bank located in Bahrain. R. 113-14. Nor does AHAB itself have any presence in or relevant contact with New York. R.87, R. 109, R.619-20. The sole New York contact AHAB alleges is that the transaction involved a ministerial transfer of U.S. dollars through New York correspondent accounts, R. 109, a practical necessity for all such large- volume foreign-exchange transactions involving a U.S.-dollar component. 5 D. The Proceedings Below Mr. Al-Sanea sought dismissal of AH-AB's third-party claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and on forum non conveniens grounds. R.65-66. Separately, Mashreq moved to dismiss AHAB's counterclaims, and the AH-AB partners moved to dismiss Mashreq's case against them as individuals. R.16, R.34-35. Shortly after Mr. Al-Sanea moved to dismiss, AHAB purported to notice Mr. A1-Sanea's deposition in Saudi Arabia, seeking ostensibly jurisdictional 5 Mashreq maintains a New York office, but there is no allegation that that office was involved in any of the transactions or conduct at issue here. discovery. R. 1507-08. Mr. Al-Sanea sought a protective order on the grounds that the deposition was not authorized by the CPLR, that Al-AB failed to satisfyi this Court's stringent test applicable to demands for international discovery, and that AHAB's jurisdictional allegations failed to make a sufficient start toward establishing jurisdiction. At oral argument, the trial court ordered a discovery stay, R.659, which remained in effect until the court issued its order dismissing the case. During proceedings on other motion practice, the trial court also expressed concern that New York might be an inconvenient forum for litigation of the entire case, and Mr. Al-Sanea's counsel advised the court that many of the bases of his forum non conveniens motion applied with equal force to Mashreq's first-party action. R.653-59. The trial court called for additional submissions from the parties on issues offorum non conveniens as applied to the entire case. R.658-60. In its supplemental papers, Mashreq consented to dismissal of its claims against AHAB and the Al-AB partners, acknowledging that those claims were duplicative of claims Mashreq was pursuing in a suit in the UAE, and that one of its key reasons for filing in New York-its belief that relevant AHAB assets might be found in New York-turned out to be incorrect. R.1452-54, R.1465-67. Only AHAB resisted dismissal of the case. In a memorandum decision entered on July 29, 2010, the trial court ordered the action, as well as the related action against the AHAB partners, dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds (and also addressed additional matters not at issue in this appeal). R. 1-29. AHAB filed a notice of appeal on August 27, 2010, and perfected its appeal on May 27, 2011, assigning clear error to the trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal and its denial of forum-related discovery. ARGUMENT I. THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUtM NON CONVENIENS Forum non conveniens, codified in part in CPLR 327, affords the trial court discretion to decline burdensome jurisdiction in cases "lacking a substantial nexus with New York." Martin v. Mieth, 35 N.Y.2d 414, 418 (1974). Dismissal is warranted if, on "balancing the interests and conveniences of the parties and the court," it is determined that an action "could better be adjudicated in another forum." Silver v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356, 360 (1972); see CPLR 327(a) (authorizing dismissal if "the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum"); Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N-Y.2d 474, 478-79 (1984). Although the Appellate Division is permitted to exercise independent discretion in reviewing forum non conveniens rulings, see Nguyen v. Banque Indosuez, 19 A.D.3d 292, 294 (1 st Dep't 2005), it is not obliged to do so. Indeed, this Court routinely affirms forum non conveniens determinations upon concluding that there was no abuse of discretion below. See, e.g., Payne v. Jumeirah Hospitality & Leisure (USA), Inc., 83 A.D.3d 518, 518 (1st Dep't 2011); World Point Trading PTE, Ltd v. Credito Italiano, 225 A.D.2d 153, 159, 162 (1 st Dep't 1996); A&MExports, Ltd. v. Meridien Int'l Bank, Ltd., 207 A.D.2d 741, 741 (1 st Dep't 1994). A defendant seekingforum non conveniens dismissal need not prove that an alternative forum exists. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 478. He need only demonstrate that the relevant factors weigh against the exercise of jurisdiction by a New York court. Id. at 479. The issue on forum non conveniens analysis is whether New York's interests in adjudicating a dispute justify imposing on the parties, witnesses, and courts the burdens of litigating here. Foreign plaintiffs bear a heavy burden to justify availing themselves of a New York forum: A non-resident such as AHAB must "demonstrate that special circumstances exist[] warranting retention of the case in New York." Mensah v. Moxl ey, 23 5 A.D.2d 910, 911 (3 d Dep't 1997). New York courts typically consider several factors in evaluatingforum non conveniens motions, including (a) the "non-residen[ce]" of "both parties to the action"; (b) the jurisdiction in which the cause of action arose; (c) the "potential hardship to the defendant and relevant witnesses"; (d) the "applicability of foreign law"; (e) "the burden on the New York courts"; and (f) "the availability of another suitable forum." Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 479, 48 1; Shin-Etsu Chem. Co. v. ICICI Bank, Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 171, 178 (1st Dep't 2004); Wentzel v. Allen Mach., Inc., 277 A.D.2d 446, 447 (2d Dep't 2000). The trial court properly dismissed this case on forum non conveniens grounds, and correctly denied AHAB forum-related discovery. Here, every one of the relevant factors heavily favors dismissal. As the trial court found: (a) None of the parties resides in New York; all are foreign citizens located in Saudi Arabia or the UAB, R. 13, R.24; (b) All of the alleged misconduct arose overseas, R.24; (c) The hardship to the parties and key witnesses-none of whom resides in New York-would be severe, R.24, R.26; (d) The New York courts would be required to interpret and apply Saudi and UAE law, R.24-25; (e) The burdens on the New York courts are unjustifiable, not least because parallel actions in other fora raise the risk of "duplication of effort" and "inconsistent rulings by courts in different jurisdictions," R.26-27; and (f) Multiple jurisdictions offer suitable alternative fora for adjudicating the claims at issue, R.24, R.27. As th e court noted,, both AHAB and Mashreq have sought similar-indeed, broader-relief in other jurisdictions, and Masbreq consented to dismissal of its case here in favor of litigation in the UAE. R. 1453-67. Adjudication of AHAB's claims here would simply add yet another parallel proceeding to the multiple fora hearing AHAB's allegations. Taken together, these factors effectively compelled dismissal of the case,, as the trial court correctly concluded. R.24. A. AHAB's Threshold Procedural Arguments Regarding the Trial Court's Supposed Lack of Authority to Dismiss this Case Are Nothing But Lawyer Makeweights 1. There Was No Improper Sila Sponte Action Below Seemingly cognizant of the weakness of its position on the merits of the forum non conveniens analysis, AHAB opens its argument on appeal by claiming that the trial court exceeded its technical authority in granting dismissal of the entire case below,, including both Mashreq's first-party claims and AHAB's third-party claims against Mr. Al-Sanca. Nothing could be further from the truth (and, in any event, AHAB waived any such argument by failing to raise it below, see, e.g., Sosa v. Cumberland Swan, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 156, 157 (1 st Dep't 1994)). The trial court acted well within its statutory and prudential authority by dismissing the entire action after (1) Mr. Al-Sanea moved to dismiss the third-party claims on forum non conveniens grounds; (2) dismissal of the entire case on forum non conveniens grounds was raised in open court by both Mr. Al-S anea and the trial court; (3) all parties were afforded an opportunity to brie fforum non conveniens issues as applied to the entire case; and (4) Mashreq expressly consented to dismissal of its first-party claims. AHAB's argument that the trial court undertook an improper sua sponte act finds no support in the law. Indeed, New York' sforum non conveniens statute itself refutes AHAB's claim, and confirms that the trial court was empowered to resolve Mr. Al-Sanea's motion by dismissing all or any portion of the case below: "When the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum, the court, on the motion of any party, may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just." CPLR 327(a) (emphasis added). New York courts routinely exercise their discretion in tailoring the scope offorum non conveniens dismissal as appropriate to the facts of a given case. See, e.g., Imperial Imps. Co. v. Hugo Neu & Sons, 161 A.D.2d 411, 412 (1 st Dep't 1990) (severing third-party action from first-party action and dismissing third-party action on motion of third-party defendant to dismiss entire case, finding that the motion "invoked the court's authority to entertain the granting of such relief in full or in part, based upon any consideration that might be just (CPLR 3 27(a)), irrespective of whether or not [third-party defendant] specifically sought a severance"); see also Shiboleth v. Yerushalmi, 268 A.D.2d 3 00, 3 00 (1 st Dep't 2000); Banco do Estado de Sao Paulo S.A. v. Mendes Jr. Int'l Co., 249 A.D.2d 13 7, 13 8-39 (1 st Dep't 1998). That Mr. Al-Sanea, the third-party defendant, was the party whose motion invoked forum non conveniens, and that Mr. Al-Sanea was the first party to proposeforum non conveniens dismissal of Mashreq's first-party claims, is of no moment. A third-party defendant such as Mr. Al-Sanea "shall have the rights of a party adverse to the other parties in the action." CPLR 1008; see also Kearns v. Johnson, 23 8 A.D.2d 121, 122 (1 st Dep't 1997). Although Mr. Al-Sanea initially moved to dismiss only the third-party claims, his counsel raised in open court the proposition of extendingforum non conveniens dismissal to the entire case. 6 All of 6 R.654-55 ("Mr. Serio: ... I do think that your Honor is onto something in that the first-party action, if you will, .filed by Mashreq is also subject to duplicative proceedings. I understand that Mashreq has filed a suit in the United Arab Emirates against AHAB; and so in fact, just as with respect to my forum non motion where we contend that there are multiplicity of other proceedings that have far greater connection to the parties than does New York and that this is an imposition, I think the same could be true."); R. 1451 ("Mr. Serio: .. . My motion of course is addressed to the third-party complaint. But in a sense, as an amicus of the Court, I mentioned that the last time, that in fact we have standing, that the Court would be well grounded in its discretion to dismiss the entire action as on forum non conveniens grounds." (emphasis added)); see also R. 1454, R. 1459, R. 1474. AHAB falsely contends that Mr. Al-Sanea raised forum non conveniens dismissal of the first-party action only in his reply brief. That contention is not only untrue, R.654-55, but also irrelevant, as AHAB was afforded an opportunity to brief the issue of whether the first-party claims should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. the parties, including AHAB, were afforded an opportunity to brief whether the entire case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds.7 R.658-60. Moreover, Mashreq expressly consented to forum non conveniens dismissal of the first-party claims. R. 1453, R. 1467. As this Court has recognized, and despite AHAB's suggestions to the contrary, Mashreq was well within its rights to withdraw its claims against AHAB and consent to forum non conveniens dismissal of AH-AB's counterclaims. See Sears Tooth v. Georgiou, 69 A.D.3 d 464, 465 (1 st Dep't 20 10) (dismissing counterclaims on forum non conveniens grounds after plaintiff withdrew his underlying claims). AHAB claims the trial court's dismissal of the first-party claims was "clear error"-but, tellingly, it cites no case in support of that proposition. No such case exists. The only cases AHAB cites concerned instances of true sua sponte action in which no party had sought the court's intervention on forum non conveniens grounds.8 No New York case has ever held that a court lacks authority to dismiss 7 Mr. Al-Sanea's notice of motion also specifically sought "such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper." R.66; ef CPLR 2001. 8 See VSL Corp v. Dunes Hotels & Casinos, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 948, 948 (1988) (no forum non conveniens motion by any party); Todtman, Young, Tunick, Nachamie, Hendler, Spizz & Drogin, P. C v. Richardson, 231 A.D.2d 1, 5 (1 st Dep't 1997) ("The IAS Court did not dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as defendants had requested. Rather . .. the court essentially decided the motion, sua sponte, under a choice of forum analysis, a [Footnote continued on next page] first-party claims in light of a forum non conveniens motion filed by a third-party defendant. 2. The Trial Court Was Not Obliged to Hear the Third-Party Claims as "Inseparably Connected" to the First-Party Claims Even if the trial court had erred in dismissing the first-party action-and it assuredly did not-it still would have been proper to dismiss AHAB's third-party claims. New York courts routinely divide cases on forum non conveniens grounds, for example, by dismissing third-party claims-including indemnity claims such as AHAB's-while maintaining related first-party claims. See, e.g., Stravalle v. Land Cargo, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 735 (2d Dep't 2007); Shiboleth, 268 A.D.2d at 300; Imperial Imps., 161 AD.2d at 412. Mashreq' s routine commercial claims against AHAB, seeking enforcement of a financial transaction, and AHAB's claims against Mr. Al-Sanea, concerning an alleged global fraud involving the conduct of AHAB's internal affairs and global business activities, as well as billions of dollars in excess of the Mashreq transaction, are entirely severable disputes.9 [Footnote continued from previous page] variation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens."); In re JBernz (Widschi), 139 A.D.2d 444, 444 (1 st Dep't 1988) (reversing sua sponte forum non conveniens dismissal "without prejudice to a motion by any party to dismiss the proceeding on the ground offorum non conveniens"). 9 None of AHAB's cases demonstrates that the first- and third-party claims at issue here must be heard together. Those cases address different issues, apply [Footnote continued on next page] AHAB's conduct confirms that its purported need to litigate its claims in one forum is pretext. AHAB has asserted the same allegations in a multitude of duplicative proceedings-including in the Cayman Islands, where the Mashreq transaction is at issue, and in California, where AHAB recently sued Glenn Stewart for allegedly aiding and abetting Mr. Al-Sanea's supposed fraud, see AHAB Br. at [Footnote continued from previous page] different standards, and/or analyze different factual scenarios. See Van Deventer v. CS SCF Mgmt. Ltd., 37 A.D.3d 280, 281 (1 st Dep't 2007) (refusing to dismiss two of fifteen claims against defendants while proceeding with remaining claims); Perkow v. Frank W Winne & Sons, 36 A.D.3d 1189, 1190 (3d Dep't 2007) (refusing to dismiss foreign party that was subject to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, where "the burden on it in litigating in New York was not shown to be any greater than in Pennsylvania!'); Kissimmee Mem '1 Hosp. v. Wilson, 188 A.D.2d 802, 803 (3d Dep't 1992) (refusing to dismiss counterclaim, particularly because judgment for plaintiff on principal claim would "bar[]" counterclaim); Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Ins. Corp. of Ireland, 603 F. Supp. 636, 642 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (under federalforum non conveniens standard, refusing to dismiss action commenced by New York plaintiff despite possibility that foreign defendants "will not be able to implead [foreign] third- party defendants"); Excel Shipping Corp. v. Seatrain Int'l S.A., 5 84 F. Supp. 734, 743-44 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) (under federal standard, refusing to dismiss third- party claims asserted under "liberal" admiralty rules permitting defendant to hold third-party defendant "liable directly to [first-party] plaintiff'). Moreover, American Home Assurance and Excel Shipping expressly acknowledge that first- and third-party claims may be severed. Accord, e.g., Olympic Corp. v. Societe Generale, 462 F.2d 376, 378-79 (2d Cir. 1972). Nor does In re Air Crash Near Nantucket Island, No. 00-MDL-1 1344, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16085 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2004), support AH{AB's position. That case involved the federal standard-which requires an alternative forum-and merely held that defendants in a series of cases arising out of a plane crash should be amenable to suit in one forum. AHAB does not seek to consolidate its entire global litigation campaign within a single forum. 32-33 & n.22, 46-yet AHAB has never claimed that they should all be consolidated in one forum. Thus, AHAB's invocation of New York's purported "public policy of encouraging the consolidation of cases presenting common questions of law and fact," AHAB Br. at 22, is disingenuous at best. It is not consolidation that AHAB seeks-rather, AHAB seeks to prosecute a multiplicity of related proceedings in order to maximize its procedural advantages. B. All of the Traditional Forum Non Con veniens Factors Support Dismissal 1. None of the Parties Resides in New York Where no party to a dispute resides in New York, the balance powerfully favors dismissal. See, e.g., Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 479; Nguyen, 19 A.D.3d at 294- 95 (reversing denial offorum non conveniens dismissal where, inter alia, "[o]nly one of seven named plaintiffs lives in New York"). As the trial court correctly found,, none of the parties to this dispute resides in New York-or anywhere in the United States. R. 13, R.24- 2. The Relevant Events Occurred in the Middle East That the "'transaction[s] out of which the cause of action arose occurred primarily in a foreign jurisdiction' weighs strongly in favor of dismissal." Silver Lane Advisors LLC v. Bellatore LLC, Index No. 600668/09, 2009 WVL 2045513, at * 3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. July 6, 2009) (quoting Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 479); accord, e.g., World Point Trading, 225 A.D.2d. at 159. Here, all of the relevant alleged events transpired in the Mfiddle East. The first-party claims concern the breach of a currency-exchange agreement, in which AHAB3 failed to make payment of Saudi riyals to Mashreq' s account in Saudi Arabia. R. 104, R. 125,- R. 139. AHAB does not contend that this action arose in New York. The alleged basis of AHAB's third-party claims is that Mr. Al- Sanea, in his position at AHAB, secretly exercised unauthorized control over AHAB's employees and businesses, all of which were operated from Saudi Arabia (or Bahrain). See, e.g., R.24, R. 112. With the exception of the ministerial acts of New York bank employees instructed by parties overseas, this claimed conduct occurred entirely outside of New York. AHAB alleges that Mr. Al-Sanea "directed employees of AHAB to agree to, and to implement the transaction" at the center of this case. R. 112. But AHAB nowhere alleges that any of that claimed conduct occurred in New York. That is not surprising, because none of the parties to AHAB's third-party claims resided or did business here. As the trial court found, "[allthough the alleged fraud may have taken place with use of banks in New York, the alleged fraudulent activities occurred in Saudi Arabia." R.24. AHAB's assertion that some of the funds at issue passed through New York correspondent bank accounts changes none of this. Such a New York connection "at best is only marginal,." A &MExports, Ltd. v. Meridien Int'l Bank, Ltd., 207 A.D.2d 741, 741-42 (1 st Dep't 1994), and has nothing to do with the substance of this case. Courts have repeatedly dismissed similar cases on forum non conveniens grounds where, as here, the crux of the dispute concerned events that transpired outside of New York. See id.; World Point Trading, 225 A.D.2d at 160-61 (finding "locus of the asserted breach" in dispute between foreign entities to be outside of New York even though breach involved failure to make payment to a New York bank). AHAB argues (wrongly) that it supposedly suffered harm in New York, but there is no dispute that the transactions at issue were entered into in the Middle East, that AHAB's liability arises from its failure to make payment in the Middle East, and that all of Mr. Al-Sanea's alleged misdeeds were carried out, if at all, from Saudi Arabia. 3. Dismissal Serves the Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses To prevail on its claims, AHAB will need to prove its allegations that Mr. Al-Sanea directed the transactions at issue-which he did, if at all, from Saudi Arabia-and that he did so without AHAB's knowledge or authorization. Virtually all of the key evidence germane to those allegations is in the Middle East. As the trial court recognized, this strongly favors dismissal. R.26; see, e.g., Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 482. Witnesses. The likely witnesses in this case are almost all in the Middle East or elsewhere overseas, and many of them cannot be compelled to testify here. R-1296-1304. AHAB is a Saudi partnership, and almost all of its partners reside in Saudi Arabia, as does Mr. AI-Sanea. R.618-20. Mashreq is based in Dubai. R.50. The employees of all the relevant entities reside principally in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,, or the UAE. R. 1296-1304. Mr. Al-Sanea and most of the AHAB partners are currently prohibited from leaving Saudi Arabia. R. 1296. In total, there are at least forty-eight potential witnesses residing in the Middle East-thirty-seven in Saudi Arabia alone. R.1296-04. AHAB does not dispute the residence of any. AHAB Br. at 34. Instead, it asserts that the relevant witnesses are "scattered" and claims that no forum is perfectly situated to compel their testimony. AHAB Br. at 38. But the key question-which AHAB does not address-is where the witnesses are to be found and the extent to which they would be burdened by an appearance in New York. The key witnesses concerning the core issues here-whether M\r. Al-Sanea wielded unauthorized control over AHAB's affairs, and what knowledge AHAB had of his alleged actions-are Mr. Al-Sanca, the AHAB partners, and relevant current and former personnel of Al-AB and Saad entities. 10 Many of those witnesses reside in Saudi Arabia and 10 AHAB makes much of the fact that, according to its expert, uncorroborated testimony of the parties' personnel would not be credited by a Saudi tribunal, R.952, claiming that this means Saudi Arabia cannot provide a suitable forum. This is precisely the sort of procedural difference that courts have specifically rejected as grounds for opposingforum non conveniens dismissal. See, e.g., [Footnote continued on next page] are subject to travel bans. R.622, 1295-96. The vast majority of the witnesses located outside of Saudi Arabia (many of whom lived there at the time) reside in other Middle Eastern states-primarily Bahrain and the UAE-none of which is a signatory to the Hague Convention AHAB seeks to invoke. R.974-77. Moreover, none of the parties or key witnesses identified by Mashreq, AHAB, or Mr. Al-Sanea is located in New York. R.967-68. Thus, AHAB's claim that New York is better equipped than other fora to compel relevant testimony is largely illusory. Compelling these witnesses and the parties to appear and produce evidence in New York would impose substantial burdens on them. See, e.g., Nasser v. Nasser, 52 A.D.3d 306, 306-07 (1st Dep't 2008); Garmendia v. O'Neill, 46 A.D.3d 361, 362 (1 st Dep't 2007); Silver Lane Advisors, 2009 WVL 2045513, at *3. Requiring Saudi nationals, for example, to travel more than 6,500 miles in order to appear in New York-assuming they are not barred from doing so, see R. 1296- would be extraordinarily burdensome. Furthermore, many of the witnesses do not speak English as a first language-including Mr. Al-Sanea and the AHAB partners. R.1296, R.1299-1300. That some witnesses may speak English fluently, [Footnote continued from previous page] Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 650 F.2d 408, 415 (2d Cir. 198 1); ,id at 416 (Maletz, J., dissenting) (upholdingforum non conveniens dismissal despite dissent's assertion that, "in Brazil the officers, directors and agents of a corporate litigant usually cannot testify"). as AHAB offers in counter-argumnent, is beside the point. 11 Indeed, contrary to its suggestions here, AHAB has admitted in court filings elsewhere that some of its own witnesses will "require an interpreter" in order to testify in English. R.985. In the recent U.K. trial of the consolidated bank actions against AHAB, AHAB's counsel "insisted that arrangements be made for ... more than one interpreter" to translate testimony of potential witnesses. R. 1784. Moreover, many of the witnesses are foreign non-parties that cannot be compelled to testify in New York-such as former AHAB employees who are beyond the trial court's subpoena power-which further weighs against litigation in New York. See Hormel Int'l Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 55 A.D.2d 905, 906 (2d Dep't 1977); see also Murray v. British Broad Corp., 81 F .3 d 287, 294-95 (2d Cir. 1996); Howard v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., No. 96 Civ. 45 87, 1997 WVL 107633, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 1997). And Saudi witnesses, in particular, are not subject to service under the Hague Convention on Service of Process.12 See Tinicum Props. Assocs. Ltd. P ship v. Garnett, Civ. A. No. 92-0860, 1992 WL 11AHAB touts the supposed significance of two witnesses not in the Middle East-Glenn Stewart and Mark Hayley-but both of them are located thousands of miles from New York, and AHAB offers no evidence that either Hayley (located in the U.K.) or Stewart will "6agree" to testify in New York. 12 In contrast,, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE are parties to a Gulf Cooperation Council agreement concerning cross-border judicial assistance. R.95 1. 995 90, at * 1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 1992). Deposing Saudi nationals within Saudi Arabia in aid of foreign proceedings is significantly complicated by Saudi law. R. 1495-97. AHAB also baldly asserts that witnesses from New York banks have "highly relevant" relevant testimony, but it proffers no evidence of any such information held by those entities, which merely executed ministerial banking transactions (which are largely undisputed). These facts also favor dismissal. See, e.g., World Point Trading, 225 A.D.2d at 161. Documents. Like the witnesses, the key documents relevant to this dispute are likely in the Middle East-in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or the UAE-, where the parties are based-and many are in Arabic. AHAB concedes that there are relevant documents in Saudi Arabia, AHAB Br. at 36-and, indeed, it was recently forced to disclose to the plaintiffs in the consolidated U.K. bank cases certain additional documents its counsel allegedly discovered in a "cupboard" in the Saudi office of one of its partners. R. 1781-1782. AHAB makes much of the fact that its documents are available electronically, id. at 37, but that is of little moment given that it allegesforgery as to many if not all of the key documents, R.89, R-91, R.97, R. 103. AHAB itself admits that examination of original documents is necessary to address such allegations. R.98 1. Additionally, all or most of the key documents concerning Mr. Al-Sanea's authority vel non to act on AHAB's behalf, and AHAB's knowledge of his activities, consist of Arabic-language legal instruments governed by Saudi law, as to which the only legally operative text is the Arabic original, see, e.g., R.989- 1024-and the parties may dispute whether contemporaneously prepared English translations of those documents accurately express the operative terms. Documents evidencing what AHAB's partners knew or did not know, and what alleged actions by Mr. Al-Sanea they authorized or ratified, are also likely to include Arabic documents. AHAB itself recently conceded that a "vast amount" of relevant "documentation was in Arabic," necessitating "six agencies of translators." R. 1782. Even when available, translations of foreign-language documents are not free from ambiguity. See, e.g., In re Bancredit Cayman, Ltd., No. 06-11026, 2008 WL 5396618, at *6..*7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008). AHAB also makes much of supposedly relevant documentary evidence from Bank of America and HSBC that would be located in New York. But it misleads the Court in suggesting that it must litigate here in order to obtain that evidence; in reality, AH-AB has already obtained a court order authorizing it to take discovery from those banks in aid of its foreign litigation efforts. See Standard Chartered, 2011 WI. 1900695 , at * 1. In any event, the mechanics of the relevant correspondent bank transactions are largely uncontested. 4. This Case Would Require the Court to Apply Saudi and UAE Law As the trial court correctly held, AHAB's claims against Mr. Al-Sanea are governed by Saudi law, and Mashreq's claims against AHAB are governed by UAE law. R.24-25. This is "an important consideration .. . weighiling] in favor of dismissal." Shin-Etsu, 9 A.D.3d at 178 (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947), and Bewers v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 99 A.D.2d 949, 950 (1st Dep't), aff'd, 64 N.Y.2d 630 (1984)); accord, e.g., Tilleke & Gibbins Int'l Ltd. v. Baker & McKenzie, 302 A.D.2d 328, 329 (1st Dep't 2003). Indeed, the "mere likelihood that foreign law will apply weighs in favor of dismissal." Cavlam Bus. Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 08 Civ. 2255, 2009 WL 667272,, at * 8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009) (emphasis added); accord Globalvest, 2005 WL 1148687, at *8. AHAB does not dispute that UAE law controls Mashreq's claims. It does, however,, self-servingly assert that its fraud-based claims are governed by New York law. That is simply wrong. Under New York choice-of-law rules, a claim is governed by the law of the jurisdiction that, "because of its relationship or contact with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation." Istim, Inc. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 342, 347 (1991) (internal quotation omitted). Although New York courts at one point "applied a traditional, 'territorially oriented' approach to choice-of-law issues which applied the law of the geographical place where one key event occurred, such as the place of the wrong in tort cases"-which AHAB argues for here, AH-AB Br. at 43-this State has since "abandoned such rules" in favor of "interests analysis." Istim, 78 N.Y.2d at 347.13 Today, New York courts look to factors like those set out in section 145 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS: the "place where the injury occurred," the "place where the conduct causing the injury occurred," the "domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties," and the "place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered." 14 None of these considerations implicates New York. Al-AB, a Saudi partnership, alleges fiduciary misconduct by a Saudi citizen that transpired in Saudi Arabia, that concerns the exercise of managerial control over a Saudi partnership, and that caused injury in Saudi Arabia where AHAB is located (and where AHAB's liability arose when it failed to pay Saudi riyals into Mashreq's 13 See also AroChem Int'l, Inc. v. Buirkie, 968 F.2d 266, 270-71 (2d Cir. 1992); Simon v. Philip Morris, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 46, 56 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (noting that the Schultz case (cited by AHAB here) did not return New York conflicts law to the traditional "last event necessary" test). 14 See, e.g., Schultz v. Boy Scouts of Am., 65 N.Y.2d 189 (1985); Babcock v. Jackson,,12 N.Y.2d 473 (1963). Schultz does not support AHAB's position; that case expressly noted that New York has "departed from traditional doctrine" by abandoning "the law of the place of the wrong" as a controlling conflict-of-laws principle. Schultz, 65 N.Y.2d at 196. Saudi bank account). 15 AHAB's claims arose in Saudi Arabia, and Saudi law will apply to them. See, e.g., Atsco Ltd. v. Swanson, 29 A.D.3 d 465, 465-66 (1 st Dep't 2006); Navallo v. Am. Standard, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 599, 599-600 (2d Dep't 1996); see also Hart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 129 A.D.2d 179, 181-83, 185 & 11.3 (1 st Dep't 1987).16 The ministerial involvement of New York correspondent bank transactions does not render New York the jurisdiction with the "greatest concern"~ over AHAB's claims. Under similar circumstances, this Court held in Atsco Ltd. v. Swanson, for example, that Malaysian law applied to fraudulent conveyance claims involving the transfer of Malaysian assets into New York and subsequent New York transactions designed to shield those assets from enforcement of a Malaysian judgment. 29 A.D.3d 465, 465-66 (1st Dep't 2006); R.l 187-89, R.l 193-95. Here, 15 Even under AHAB 's flawed "last event" choice-of-law theory, see AHAB Br. at 43,, New York law would not apply, because the alleged "last event" establishing liability here occurred either in Saudi Arabia-where Mr. Al-Sanea allegedly caused AHAB to take on unauthorized debts to Mashreq, and where AHAB's failure to pay Saudi riyals to Mashireq arose-or in Bahrain, where Awal Bank refused AHIAB access to funds it held on account for AH-AB. R. 104, R. 113 -15. 16 For similar reasons, AH-AB's counterclaims against Mashreq would be governed by UAE or Saudi law. Mashreq's alleged involvement in Mr. Al- Sanea's supposed scheme would have transpired from the UAE and would have related to Mr. Al-Sanea's alleged acts in Saudi Arabia, and AHAB's injury would have arisen in Saudi Arabia. as in Atsco, the fact that some aspects of the alleged misconduct touched New York is not enough to justify applying New York law. Indeed, the regulation of the internal affairs of AHAB, a Saudi partnership company, is entrusted to Saudi law as a matter of public policy. See Globalvest, 2005 WL 1148687, at *8 (citing Edgar v. MITE Corp., 45 7 U.S. 624, 645 (1982)). Indeed, ARAB has admitted elsewhere that Saudi law governs the question of whether its debts are the product of unauthorized conduct by Mr. Al-Sanea; in the consolidated U.K. bank cases, for example, AHAB asserted that it planned to establish its defense of unauthorized conduct by presenting evidence regarding Mr. Al-Sanea' s "authority ... to act on behalf of AHAB," including expert evidence on "Saudi law ... in relation to issues of authority." R.984-86 (emphasis added). Even before the trial court below, AHAB acknowledged the applicability of Saudi law to its own internal affairs. 17 AHAB now lamely claims that choice-of-law analysis is irrelevant because "[n]o system of law" would penmit the misconduct it alleges against Mr. Al-Sanea. That misses the point entirely; whether Mr. Al- Sanea is liable to AHAB-i. e. , whether he surreptitiously engaged in unauthorized conduct or, alternately, whether AHAB's financial woes are the result of innocent, authorized, yet unfortunate financial mismanagement (by Mr. Al-Sanea or others) 17 R.2 14; R.237 ("Just, Your Honor, that -- you're right. Saudi law does apply."). that was known to AHAB-can be determined only by applying the facts of the case to the controlling principles of Saudi law that govern those parties and their business operations. R.24. 5. Hearing This Case in New York Would Impose an Undue Burden on the Court Litigating this case in New York would also impose an undue burden on the New York courts. See, e.g., Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 479-82. Because New York has no interest in this lawsuit, see infra at 44-48, the substantial burden on jurors and on an already congested court system cannot be justified. This is not a run-of-the-mill civil case. AHAB's claims concern allegations of a massive and complex (albeit far-fetched) multi-national fraud conducted from Mr. Al-Sanea's Saudi headquarters. A New York court would need to hear evidence from foreign parties and witnesses, involving foreign languages and legal principles, and expert testimony on foreign law. R.984-86, R. 1296-13 04; see, e.g., Troni v. Banca Popolare Di Milano, 129 A.D.2d 502, 503-04 (1st Dep't 1987). Litigating the case likely will require discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, testimony from scores of foreign witnesses, and years of protracted court proceedings. The core of the case concerns the operations of a Saudi business enterprise by Saudi nationals-not the ministerial execution of electronic transactions by New York bank functionaries. New York faces a disproportionate burden in terms of language and logistics. The burdens that would be foisted on a New York court here are even less justifiable in light of AHAB's duplicative litigation efforts in other jurisdictions around the world. See, e.g., Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Metals Holding Corp., 45 A.D.3d 361, 362 (1st Dep't 2007); World Point Trading, 225 A.D.2d at 161; see also R.620-22. This multiplicity of parallel actions "involves duplication of effort" and "presents the attendant risk that conflicting rulings might be issued by courts of two jurisdictions," which is "a powerful factor favoring dismissal." World Point Trading, 225 A.D.2d at 16 1; Alberta & Orient Glycol Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., Inidex No. 603150/05, 2007 WL 6881693, at * 12 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 24 ,2007) (R.1274); accord Citigroup, 45 A.D.3d at 362. The trial court expressly recognized that this compelling factor favored dismissal. R.26-27. 6. Saudi Arabia and the UAE Offer Superior Alternative iFora for Resolving This Dispute Perhaps the most critical factor compelling dismissal of this case is the ready availability of alternative-indeed, superior-fora for resolving this case. As the trial court found, "several alternative locations are available to resolve the disputes, and indeed, AHAB has already commenced a number of actions against Al Sanea in various countries." R.24. Mashreq has also asserted its claims elsewhere. R. 1467. As the trial court correctly found, R.27, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE offer available and adequate alternatives to litigation in New York. In New York, forum non conveniens dismissal may be granted even in the absence of an alternative forum, e.g., Shin-Etsu, 9 A.D.3d at 179 (citing Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 478-81,1 484), although the availability of another forum is an "important factor," Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 48 1. A forum is "adequate" if-as in this case-the defendant is "'amenable to process"' there and the forum "'pennit[s] litigation of the subject matter of the dispute."' Shin-Etsu, 9 A.D.3d at 178-79 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22 (198 1)). A forum need not entertain the entirety of a dispute to be an adequate alternative for those portions it does adjudicate. Shiboleth, 268 A.D.2d at 300 (dismissing third- party claims in favor of Israel while maintaining first-party claims). i. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE Are Adequate and Available There can be no dispute that Mr. Al-Sanea, a Saudi citizen and resident, is amenable to process in Saudi Arabia. Nor is there any doubt that Saudi Arabia offers an adequate forum to litigate this type of dispute, as Mr. Al-S anca's expert opined. R.628, R.635-37. That opinion has repeatedly been confirmed. See, e.g., Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799, 802-03 (7th Cir. 1997); Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 290 (5th Cir. 1989); Shields v. Mi Ryung Constr. Co., 508 F. Supp. 891, 896 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); see also Jeha v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 751 F. Supp. 122, 125-26 (S.D. Tex. 1990). Such cases squarely refute AH-AB's contention that Saudi Arabia's procedural rules make it an inadequate alternative-as did AHAB's expert, who opined that "Saudi Arabia maintains an effective judicial system to adjudicate commercial disputes" that "discharges effective justice on a routine basis." 18 R.947 (internal quotation omitted), R.955. AHAB's only argument against litigating in Saudi Arabia is that it perceives Saudi Arabia as a strategically disadvantageous forum-because it cannot avail itself of U.S. discovery and evidentiary rules in a Saudi tribunal. That argument is specious. AHAB's inability to "obtain expansive U.S.-style discovery" or U.S. procedural advantages in another forum "do[es] not render the forum inadequate." Globalvest, 2005 WLT 1148687, at * 9; see Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. 1KB Deutsche Industriebank A G, Index No. 600704/08,2008 WL 5478808, at * 7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Dec. 29, 200 8) (R. 1215); Kuwaiti Eng'g Grp. v. Consortium Int'l, Index No. 600033/2005, 2007 WL 2175546, at *23 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 15, 2007) 18 Likewise, there can be no dispute that the courts of the UAE are available to adjudicate the dispute between Mashreq and AHAB. Mashreq has sued AHAB there and consented to dismissal of this case in favor of that one. R. 1467. At its core, AHAB's only complaint regarding litigation in the UAE is that, as a matter of substantive law, it cannot state a claim there. AHAB Br. at 19. It does not argue, however, that the UAE refuses to "'permit[] litigation of the subject matter of the dispute,"' Shin-Etsu, 9 A.D.3d at 178-79; it merely quarrels with the form of litigation there. Such complaints fail to render the forum inadequate. See, e.g., Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 247, 254 (1981) ("The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry."). AHAB cannot base a forum non conveniens opposition on the mere fact that it cannot prevail in the UAE. (R. 123 0), aff'd, 50 A.D.3d 599 (1 st Dep't 2007); accord, e.g., Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974, 98 1-82 (2d Cir. 1993); Panama Processes, 650 F.2d at 415-16; supra note 10. AHAB's desire for New York discovery cannot overcome the compelling grounds for forum non conveniens dismissal. 19 ii. Although Not Necessary, the Entire Case Can Be Heard in a Single Alternative Forum AHAB also claims that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are inadequate because those jurisdictions could not adjudicate the first-party and third-party claims in this case together. That argument is not only legally irrelevant-there is no requirement that Mashreq's first-party claims be heard in the same forum as AHAB's third-party claims, see supra at 24-26-but also factually unsupported. For example, nothing precludes AHAB from suing Mashreq and Mr. Al-Sanea in Saudi Arabia. Saudi courts have jurisdiction over "cases filed against a Saudi," as 19 The few cases AHAB cites are inapposite, as they involved far greater New York contacts than are present here-including, inter alia, defendants who resided in New York and claims that were governed by New York law. See Waterways Ltd. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 174 A.D.2d 324, 327-28 (1 st Dep't 1991) (defendant maintained an office in New York; contract was executed in defendants' New York office and contained New York choice-of-law clause; and key witnesses and documents were in New York); Republic of Lebanon v. Sotheby's, 167 A.D.2d 142, 144 (1 st Dep't 1990) (defendant Sotheby's was present in New York; property at issue was located in New York and had been transported there by defendants; none of the claimants to the property resided in alternative forum; and application of foreign law was in doubt). well as over "cases filed against an alien" if either "the lawsuit involves .. , an obligation"' that "originated or is enforceable in the Kingdom," or "the lawsuit is against more than one person and one of them has a place of residence in the Kingdom." R.l 1119. Likewise, the parties are already litigating in the UAE, where Mashreq has sued both AHAB and Mr. Al-S anea, R. 1467, and nothing precludes Al-AB from asserting its claims against Mrt. Al-Sanea there. 7. Saudi Arabia Has a Keen Interest in This Dispute Dismissal under these circumstances also permitted the trial court to give deference-as New York courts should-to Saudi Arabia's critical interest in "cresolving its own affairs." Shin-Etsu, 9 A.D.3d at 178. "[W]here a foreign forum has a substantial interest in adjudicating an action"--such as where that forum is "keenly interested in governing the affairs of its financial institutions"--that interest is yet another factor "weighing in favor of dismissal." Id. at 178; Garmendia, 46 A.D.3d at 362. Saudi Arabia has made clear that the dispute between AHAB and Mr. Al- Sanea is matter of significant public concern with substantial implications for the Saudi economy at large. The Saudi Government went so far as to form the Saudi Committee-staffed by its Attorney General and several other high-ranking officials-to investigate the dispute. R.620-21. There could be no clearer expression of Saudi Arabia's interest in this dispute. 8. New York Has Virtually No Interest in This Dispute AHAB also attempts to argue that the demonstrable burdens on the New York courts are outweighed in this case by New York's supposedly "paramount" interest in the case, deriving from an alleged "misuse" of the New York banking system. Determining whether or not there was any such "misuse" of New York banks,, however,, necessarily turns on principles of foreign law, and on their application to facts that can be established only through evidence located abroad: Either the transactions in AHAB 's name were authorized as a matter of Saudi law and/or known to AHAB-in which case there was no fraud or "misuse" of any New York banking instrumentality-or not. But even leaving that aside, AHAB's contention of a "paramount" New York interest that precludes forum non conveniens dismissal finds no support in the law offorum non conveniens. New York courts have repeatedly rejected the notion that forum non conveniens dismissal is unavailable whenever the alleged misconduct at issue relates to the use of New York correspondent accounts. See, e.g., World Point Trading, 225 A.D.2d at 160-61 (citing P. T Delami Garment Indus. v. Cassa di Risparmio di Torino, 164. Misc. 2d 38 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1994)); A&MExports, 207 A.D.2d at 74 1; Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Metals Holding Corp., Index. No. 604205/05, 2006 WL 1594442, at * 6-.*7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 8, 2006), aff'd, 45 A.D.3d 361, 362 (1st Dep't 2007). AHAB cites no case holding that forum non conveniens dismissal must be denied in all cases involving alleged misuse of New York banks. Instead, Al-AB relies principally on two inapposite cases involving choice- of-law and personal-jurisdiction issues-J Zeevi and Banco Nacional-in an effort to conjure support for its claim that New York must hear this case. J Zeevi involved a choice-of-law issue in a case brought by an Israeli partnership to enforce an irrevocable letter of credit, given by a Ugandan bank, that called for payment of dollars by Citibank in New York. 37 N.Y.2d at 223-25. The Bank of Uganda, implementing a "confiscatory and discriminatory" policy of the Ugandan government that reflected its "strong anti-Israel and anti-semitic" views, instructed the defendant bank not to honor the letter of credit,, and the defendant accordingly instructed Citibank not to make payment in New York. Id. at 227-28. In holding that the defendants could not invoke Ugandan law to shield themselves from liability for failure to make payment on the letter of credit in New York, the Court of Appeals observed that New York had a "paramount" interest in ensuring that the commercial expectations of parties to letters of credit payable in New York are protected-by applying New York law to enforce such letters of credit according to their terms.20 Id. It certainly did not hold, however, that New York courts must bear the burden of adjudicating every tort dispute among foreign parties that happens to involve some connection to a U.S.-dollar transaction. Moreover, the paramount New York interest noted by J Zeevi "is not a trump to be played whenever a party to such a transaction seeks to use our courts for a lawsuit with little or no apparent contact with New York or the United States." First Union Nat'l Bank v. Paribas, 135 F. Supp. 2d 443, 444-45, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (grantingforum non conveniens dismissal of case involving non-payment in New York of letter-of-credit obligations arising out of "a massive fraudulent scheme perpetrated in London"). Similarly, AHAB's reliance on Banco Nacional is misplaced. AHAB claims that the trial court "violate ld] the Banco Nacional blueprint for forum non conveniens analysis," AHAB Br. at 8, but it relies upon the Banco Nacional court's analysis of personal jurisdiction-notforum non conveniens-in making that assertion. The trial court in Banco Nacional found that the defendant was subject to long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2) despite its lack of physical presence in New York because defendant allegedly "direct[ed] tortious activities" from 20 Indosuez International Finance B. V v. National Reserve Bank, 279 A.D.2d 408 (1 st Dep't 200 1), aff'd, 98 N.Y.2d 238 (2002), and Wells Fargo Asia Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A., 936 F.2d 723 (2d Cir. 1991), also involved choice-of-law issues, not forum non conveniens. "outside the state" and "defendant's bodily presence is not an indispensible requirement for long-arm jurisdiction." 169 Misc. 2d at 188-89. It did not hold, as AHAB suggests, that every financial tort claim that allegedly involves use of New York banks by out-of-state defendants must be litigated in New York. Indeed, no court has ever applied AHAB's supposed Banco Nacional "blueprint" for analyzingforum non conveniens motions-or ever even cited Banco Nacional's jurisdictional analysis in the context of a forum non conveniens motion. Moreover, although Banco Nacional did deny a forum non conveniens motion, its analysis of that issue did not turn on the facts recited by AHAB; rather, the court refused to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds because it expressly found that "New York became the hub of defendant's activities." Id. at 192 (emphasis added). No such finding could be made here, particularly given the panoply of foreign proceedings AHAB has commenced against Mr. A1-Sanea and his alleged co-conspirators. Indeed, the mere fact that AlHAB sued in New York to recover only $150 million of a $10 billion alleged fraud is proof positive that New York is merely one of the "many spokes"-rather than the "hub"--of Mr. Al- Sanea's supposed fraud. Id. The situs of the "hub" of that fraud-namely, Saudi Arabia, where he supposedly wielded control over AHAB's affairs-is where this case should be litigated. Given the lack of nexus between New York and the subject matter of this dispute, New York courts should not be forced to bear the burden of this litigation. The fact that litigants may more easily gain access to our courts-with the consequent increase in litigation- stemming from enactment of the long-arm statute [and] changing choice of law rules . . ., requires a greater degree of forbearance in accepting suits which have but minimal contact with New York. Silver, 29 N.Y.2d at 36 1-62 (citations omitted). Thus, the trial court acted well within its discretion in dismissing the case below. 11. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED AHABWS REQUEST FOR FORUM-RELATED DISCOVERY The trial court also providently exercised its discretion in granting Mr. Al- Sanea's motion to dismiss without first entertaining AHAB's request to depose him in Saudi Arabia and take other discovery supposedly bearing on forum non conveniens issues. The decision to impose a discovery stay or grant a protective order is committed to a trial court's case-management discretion. CPLR 32 14(b); 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 202.70(g) (Rule of Practice 11l(d)); CPLR 3103(a); Andrews v. Trustco Bank, Nat'lAss'n, 289 A.D.2d 910, 912-13 (3d Dep't 2001). This Court affords "substantial deference" to a trial court's discovery determinations, e.g., Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock, 54 A.D.3d 286, 286 (1 st Dep't 2008), aff'd, 12 N.Y.3d 846 (2009), and typically reviews such determinations for abuse of discretion, see, e.g., Doherty v. City of ew York, 24 A.D.3d 275, 275 (1 st Dep't 2005). AHAB wrongly claims that it should have been afforded forum-related discovery. "A motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens does not call for a detailed development of the entire case through discovery, because '[rlequiring extensive investigation would defeat the purpose of [the] motion."' Beekmans v. JP. Morgan & Co., 945 F. Supp. 90, 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citation omitted) (quoting Piper, 454 U.S. at 258); accord Garmendia v. O'Neill, 46 A.D.3d 361, 3 62 (1lst Dep't 2007); Otor, S.A. v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A., No. 04 Civ. 6978, 2006 WL 2613 775, at * 6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006). The case of de Enamorado v. Central American Steamship Agency, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 182 (1 st Dep't 1990), cited in AHAB Br. at 49-5 1-which AHAB claims is the "most frequently cited decision" on point, even though it has been cited only by one other court, in a decision upholding the denial of forum-related discovery--does not support AHAB's claim; it merely held that a lower court did not abuse its discretion by granting forum-related discovery.2 1 AHAB cites no case finding that a trial court did abuse its discretion by denying such discovery-in these or any other circumstances. AHAB's discovery demands were also properly denied because (1) AHAB's attempt to depose Mr. Al-Sanea before his time to answer had expired was invalid 21 The other cases AH-AB cites all involved jurisdictional discovery, which is contemplated by CPLR 3211 (d)-not forum-related discovery, which is not. as a matter of law, see CPLR 3106(a); Hakim Consultants Ltd. v. Formosa Ltd., 175 A.D.2d 759, 760 (1 st Dep't 199 1); Schwartz v. Wikier, 31 A.D.2d 755, 756 (2d Dep't 1969); Kraft v. Trs. of Sailors 'Snug Harbor, 31 A.D.2d 918, 918 (1 st Dep't 1969) (per curiam); and (2) AHAB failed to meet this Court's stringent standards for taking international discovery from foreign parties, Rich bell Info. Sen's., Inc. v. Jup iter Partners, 32 A.D.3d 150, 155-59 (1 st Dep't 2006). 1I1. ALTERNATELY, THE TRIAL COURT COULD AND) SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS AGAINST MR. AL-SANEA FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION The trial court also could and should have dismissed AHIAB's third-party claims against Mr. Al-Sanea for lack of personal jurisdiction. The burden of proving jurisdiction "rests on [AHAB], as the part[y] asserting jurisdiction." Copp v. Ramirez, 62 A.D.3d 23, 28 (1st Dep't 2009). It must allege facts establishing a prima facie basis for jurisdiction. See de Capriles v. Lopez Lugo, 293 A.D.2d 405, 406 (1 st Dep't 2002). AHAB could not meet that burden here, where the only connection between its claims and this forum is the ministerial transfer of U.S. dollars through New York correspondent accounts. The trial court purported to find personal jurisdiction under both the "transacting business" standard of CPLR 302(a)(1) and the "tortious act within the state" standard of CPLR 3 02(a)(2). R.2 1. But AHAB never pleaded CPLR 3 02(a)(2) as a basis for j urisdiction,22 and it conceded in its own submissions that CPLR 3 02(a)(1) was insufficient to support jurisdiction, including by pleading "lack[ of] personal jurisdiction" as a defense to Mashreq's first-party claims (although it was forced to "withdraw" that defense for strategic reasons at oral argument). R.87, R.1477; see also R.290-375. In any event, AHAB could not satisfy CPLR 3 02(a)(1), which required Al-AB to establish a "substantial relationship" between Mr. Al-Sanea 's "transactions in New York and [AH-AB]' s cause of action." Johnson v. Ward, 4 N.Y.3d 516, 519 (2005) (internal quotation omitted). Mr. Al-Sanea had no relevant contacts with New York. R. 108, R.1 111 , R.618-20. The facts were insufficient to support personal jurisdiction. See, e.g, Warck-Meister v. Diana Lowenstein Fine Arts, 7 A.D.3d 351, 352 (1st Dep't 2004); Hubbard, Westervelt & Mottelay, Inc. v. Harsh Bldg. Co., 28 A.D.2d 295, 297 (1st Dep't 1967); M Katz & Son Billiard Prods., Inc. v. G. Correale & Sons, Inc., 26 A.D.2d 52, 53 (1 st Dep't 1966), aff'd, 20 N.Y.2d 903 (1967)., 22 Even if AHAB had pleaded CPLR 302(a)(2), its allegations would not be sufficient to support jurisdiction. AHAB claims the funds in its New York account were proceeds of Mr. Al-Sanea's alleged fraud that never should have been sent to New York in the first place-not legitimate AHAB property that he somehow "stole" in New York. In any event, CPLR 302(a)(2) requires the "tortious act" to occur in New York, and a fraud does not occur in New York simply because it concerns transfers of property in New York. See, e.g., Roddy v. Schmidt, 57 N.Y.2d 979, 98 1-82 (1982). There was no New York tort. The sole New York contact AH-AB raised was that the transaction involved funds passing through New York correspondent accounts. R. 109. But the mere use of a New York correspondent account to conduct a transaction in dollars does not give rise to jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who maintains such an account.23 And even if it could,, the accounts at issue were not Mr. Al-Sanea' s accounts, and AH-AB failed to allege particularized facts showing that Mr. Al- Sanea controlled or was the agent of the entities that owned them. See, e.g., N. Valley Partners, LLC, v. Jenkins, Index No. 101957/08, 2009 WL 1058162, at *3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 14, 2009); Karabu Corp. v. Gitner, 16 F. Supp. 2d 319, 323-24 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); compare R. 109-14. AHAB strains to characterize its allegations as laying out a "conversion" that transpired in New York, when funds held in AHAB's New York account (which, according to AHAB, were illegitimate proceeds of Mr&. Al-Sanca's unauthorized transactions in AHAB's name, not legitimate AHAB property located in New York) were transferred to Awal Bank's New York account. But AHAB's 23 See, e.g., Faravelli v. Bankers Trust Co., 85 A.D.2d 3 35, 33 9 (1 st Dep't 1982); Nemetsky v. Banque de Developpement de la Republique du Niger, 64 A.D.2d 694, 694-95 (2d Dep't 1978); Societe Financiere et d'Investissement Providence S.A. v. Joint Stock Comm. Bank Avtobank, Index No. 6045 87/200 1, slip op. at 6-9 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. May 5, 2003) (R.447-50); Neewra, Inc. v. Manakh Al1 Khaleej Gen. Trading & Contracting Co., No. 03 Civ. 293 6, 2004 WL 2813180, at * 1.-*4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2004) (R. 1276-79); Semi-Conductor Materials, Inc. v. Citibank Int'l PLC, 969 F. Supp. 243, 246 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). pleading confirms that those :funds were credited to AHAB's own account with Awal Bank in IBahrain, and it was Awal Bank's failure to honor AHAB's demands for payment on that account-in Bahrain-that led to the assertion of claims against Mr. Al-Sanea. R. 113-14. There was no "conversion" in New York.24 24 Although AHAB's demand for jurisdictional discovery below is now moot given the trial court's ruling on jurisdiction, it was just as devoid of merit as its attempt to obtain "forum-related" discovery. See supra at 48-50; Ins. Co. offN. Am. v. Emeor Grp., Inc., 9 A.D.3 d 3 19, 320 (1 st Dep't 2004); SNS Bank, N V v. Citibank, NA., 7 A.D.3d 352, 353-54 (1st Dep't 2004); Russeck Fine Art Grp. v. Theodore B. Donson, Ltd., Index No. 60 13 39/06, 2008 WL 2762944, at * 6 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 27, 2008). CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the order and judgment below should be affirmed in the entirety or, at a minimum, should be affirmed insofar as they directed dismissal of all claims against Mr. A1-Sanea. Dated: New York, New York December 7, 2011 Respectfully submitted, GIBSON, DUNN & FRUTCHER LLP By:______'L Robert F. Serio rserio~dgibsondunn.com Gabriel Herrmann ghermann(dibsondunn.com 200 Park Avenue New York,, New York 10 166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant- Respondent PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT I hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 600. 10(d)(1)(v) that this brief was prepared, using Microsoft Office Word 2010, to the following specifications: Typeface: Point Size: Line Spacing: Word Count: Dated: Times New Roman, a proportionally spaced typeface 14 Double, except footnotes which are single The body of this brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes, and exclusive of those pages containing the table of contents, the table of authorities, the proof of service and this Statement, contains 12,995 words. New York,, New York December 7, 2011 Respectfully submitted, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP By: Robert F. S jo rserio gibs ndunn-com Gabriel Herrmann gherrxnann(~gibsondunn.com 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10 166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 A4ttorneys for Third-Party Defendant- Respondent AFFIRMATION 0OF SERVICE GABRIEL HIERRMANN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of this State, hereby subscribes and affirms as true, under penalty of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106, as follows: 1 . I am an attorney associated with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York, Tel. (212) 351-4000, ghemnann~dgibsondunn.com. Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. 2. On the 7th day of December, 2011, I caused two true and correct copies of the Brief of Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, with Printing Specifications Statement, to be served by hand delivery upon the following counsel of record: Eric L. Lewis LEWIS BAACH PLLC 445 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 826-7001 Fax: (212) 826-7146 Attorneys for Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, New York 10006 Tel.: (212) 225-2000 Fax: (212) 225-3999 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent Dated: New York, New York December 7, 2011 Gabriel He mann