Epstein Secrets

i- rected activities where defendant delivered products into stream of commerce with ex- pectation they would be purchased by resi- dents of forum); Calder, 465 U.S. at 789- 90, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (fording publishing ac- tivities outside of forum were calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in forum where

m, and the litigation results from al- leged injuries that arise out of or related to those activities"). Pursuant to the hold- ings in Thayer King, Calder, and three recent terrorism cases—Rein v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 995 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.N.Y.1998), Daliberti v. Republic of Ira

UBS AG, 342 F.Supp.2d 132, 141 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (citing Flores, 343 F.3d at 153); 28 U.S.C. 1350 note. Only individuals maybe sued under the TVPA. Arndt, 342 F.Supp.2d at 141 (citing Friedman v. Bayer Corp., No. 99 Civ. 3675, 1999 WL 33457825, at *2 39. The ATA defines international terrorism as:

minimum contacts existed since dispute arose from a contract with substantial con- tacts with the forum) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (finding personal juris- diction appropriate over non-resident de- fendants who “e

tates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may rely on their “purposefully directed” theory to establish these mini- mum contacts. But as existed in Burger King, Calder, and the three terrorism cases, Plaintiffs must allege some personal or direct involvement by the Defendants in the conduct giving rise to their clai

vidual who, under actual or apparent au- thority, or color of law, of any foreign nation subjects an individual to torture or extrajudicial killing.” Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F.Supp.2d 182, 141 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (citing Flores, 343 F.3d at 153); 28 U.S.C. § 13850 note. Only individuals maybe sued under the TVPA

tate Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 435 F. App’x 52 (2d Cir, 2011) eceeccesescscsnescescsneecescsnsecescsnseeesesnseeessseseeesesnseeesnseseersnseseeeensess Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F. Supp. 2d 132 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) .......... Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 8. Ct. 1937 (2009) ..eeceecseseceesseeeeeteesteeeeee Aziz v. Alcolac

nt took ‘intentional * * * tortious, actions’ and ‘knew that the brunt of th[e] injury would be felt’ in the *15 foreign forum.” Jd. at *19, (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-790 (1984)). Even so, the United States argued that the questions presented by the Petition did not warrant review by the