On April 13, 2022, Justice Crane of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in State of Qatar v. First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 22113, holding that submitting FOREX trading quotes to New York-based services was an insufficient basis for asserting personal jurisdiction in New York, explaining:
Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is proper under CPLR 302 (a) (1), (a) (2), and (a) (3), and the due process component is satisfied.
Under CPLR 302 (a) (1), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary who in person or through an agent transacts any business within the state. This is a single act statute, meaning that proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted. Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1) is not appropriate. Plaintiff alleges that Samba transacted business in New York by submitting FOREX rate trading quotes for Qatari currency and bonds through trading accounts with Bloomberg and Reuters to platforms and data centers located in New York County. Plaintiff argues that Samba’s use of platforms and data centers (servers), offered by Bloomberg and Reuters, to submit currency exchange quotes constitutes transacting business in New York. Through the affirmation of Abdullah Omar Al-Marshad, a rates trader Samba employed, Samba asserts that its traders use Bloomberg’s and Reuters’ services from Samba’s offices in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.
The submission of data [international rates quotes] by traders in foreign nations to internet trading platforms accessible globally does not, without more, constitute purposeful activities within New York, regardless of whether the data or platforms were maintained on servers located in New York.
Further, while Samba maintains two correspondent bank accounts in New York, there are no allegations in the complaint that those correspondent accounts had any role in the allegedly tortious acts. Standing by itself, a correspondent bank relationship, without any other indicia or evidence to explain its essence, may not form the basis for long-arm jurisdiction. Here, plaintiff does not allege facts from which the court can infer that the correspondent accounts played any role in the alleged fraudulent scheme, let alone proximately caused the alleged injury.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).