The Clearing House (TCH) CH and the IIB filed a joint amicus brief challenging the plaintiff’s (Schwab) ability to meet “specific jurisdiction,” which requires a defendant to have certain “minimum contacts” with a state before being subject to suit there. Schwab asserts that the district court can exercise jurisdiction over defendants whose subsidiaries or other corporate affiliates may have had sufficient contacts in California. Schwab also asserts that the district court can exercise jurisdiction over each defendant because an alleged co-conspirator sold financial instruments in California. TCH and the IIB argue two things: (i) Schwab’s position ignores that specific personal jurisdiction exists only where the defendant personally and purposefully engaged in suit-related conduct in the forum state; and (ii) adopting Schwab’s vicarious-jurisdiction theories would violate due process and could impermissibly subject member banks to jurisdiction everywhere.
You Might Also Be Interested In...
Amicus Briefs BPI, Trades File Brief Supporting BofA Argument that National Law Preempts N.Y. Mortgage Escrow Rate Requirements
Amicus Briefs BPI, Joint Trades File Amici Brief in Goldman Shareholder Class Action Case Before SCOTUS
Consumer Affairs BPI Files Joint Amici Brief With Other Trades in California v. OCC Case on the OCC’s ‘Madden Fix’ Regulation
Amicus Briefs BPI Submits Amicus Brief in Hymes v. Bank of America National Bank Act Preemption Case
Amicus Briefs BPI Files Amicus Brief on Applicability of HOLA Preemption to Successor Banks in McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase
More Posts by This Author
Bank Liquidity Why Regulators Should Consider Banks’ Borrowing Capacity from the Fed in Liquidity Assessments