Derensis v. Coopers & Lybrand Chartered Accountants

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that two company officers were subject to jurisdiction of the court because plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing they were “controlling persons.”
• discussing jurisdiction in New Jersey over officers of a Canadian company and apparently relying on status as a \controlling person\ under 15 U.S.C.A. § 78t(a)
• considering whether a defendant is “doing business in the United States” or “doing an act in the United States” as relevant for personal jurisdiction analysis
• declining to rely on “speculation” that was contradicted by parties’ experts regarding foreign court system in deciding forum non conveniens
• “Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that [defendants] are ‘controlling persons’ . . . . Consequently, [defendants] are subject to the jurisdiction of this court.”
• Canadian forum insufficient because Canada lacks class action procedure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).