Transaction ID 55008723
`
`Case No. 8885-VCL
`
`TAB
`TAB
`
`1
`
`EFiled: Feb 17 2014 10:23AM EST
`Transaction ID 55008723
`Case No. 8885-VCL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:06-cv-01524-JLR Document 47-3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 71 of 96
`Case 2:06-cv-01524-JLR Document 47-3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 71 of 96
`
`FINAL TRANSCRIPT
`
`CRTCALCE
`
`
`
`V - Vivendi to announce new developmentin continuing dispute with
`T-Mobile and Elektrim over Polish telecommunications company-
`Conference Call
`
`Event Date/Time: Oct. 24. 2006 / 10:00AM ET
`
`
` lahatinca
`
`www.streetevents.com
`
`Contact Us
`
`
`
`© 2006 ThomsonFinancial. Republished with permission, No part of this publication may be reproduced ortransmitted in any form or by any means without the
`prior written consent of Thomson Financial.
`
`135
`135
`
`

`

`Case 2:06-cv-01524-JLR Document 47-3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 72 of 96
`Case 2:06-cv-01524-JLR Document 47-3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 72 of 96
`
`FINAL TRANSCRIPT
`
`Oct. 24, 2006 / 10:00AM, V - Vivendi to announce new developmentin continuing dispute with T-Mobile and Elektrim over Polish
`telecommunications company - ConferenceCall
`
`CORPORATE PARTICIPANTS
`
`Antoine Lefort
`Vivendi - VP, Press and Public Relations
`
`Jean-Bernard Levy
`Vivendi - CEO
`
`Lanny Davis
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe - Partner
`
`CONFERENCE CALL PARTICIPANTS
`
`Will Main
`Bear, Stearns - Analyst
`Nina Sovich
`Dow Jones- Analyst
`Matthew Curtin
`Dow Jones - Analyst
`Nate Astino
`Bloomberg News- Analyst
`
`PRESENTATION
`
`Operator
`
`Good morning. My name is Sarah and | will be your conference operator today.At this time, | would like to welcome everyone
`to the Vivendi live news conferencecall. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any backgroundnoise. After the speakers’
`remarks in New York, there will be a question-and-answersession globally. (OperatorInstructions). The live press conference
`will begin atfive after.
`
`
`
`Antoine Lefort - Vivendi - VP, Press and Public Relations
`
`Good morning. My name is Antoine Lefort, and I'm Vice President, Press and Public Relations for Vivendi. Thank you for joining
`us here in New York and thanksto all of you who havejoined us on this teleconferencecall and through our Internet Webcast
`at vivendi.com.
`
`As you know by now,Vivendi hasfiled whatis called a RICO claim against T-Mobile and otherparties today. The purposeofthis
`press conferenceis to announcethisfiling.
`
`First, Mr. Jean-Bernard Levy, CEO of Vivendi, will discuss thisfiling. He will be followed by Lanny Davis, a partner at Vivendi's
`law firm in this action, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. After their brief remarks, wewill take questions from several of you in the
`room, and then wewill go to those on the phone lines.
`
`And now let me give you Mr. Levy.
`
`Jean-Bernard Levy - Vivendi- CEO
`
`(technicaldifficulty). We will answer your questions in a few minutes.| will make somevery brief remarks. Obviously,itis unusual
`to launch such a complaint, but at the sametime,it is to me extremely logical. It is just a matter of commonsense.| think it is
`
`
`Contact Us
`www.streetevents.com
`Bldded)inasabe
`© 2006 ThomsonFinancial. Republished with permission, No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any meanswithout the
`prior written consent of ThomsonFinancial.
`
`
`
`136
`136
`
`

`

`Case 2:06-cv-01524-JLR Document 47-3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 73 of 96
`Case 2:06-cv-01524-JLR Document 47-3 Filed 05/17/07 Page 73 of 96
`
`Oct. 24. 2006 / 10:00AM, V - Vivendi to announce new developmentin continuing dispute with T-Mobile and Elektrim over Polish
`
`telecommunications company- ConferenceCall
`
`FINAL TRANSCRIPT
`
`the right time to speak directly to the public market, to the shareholders, to the regulators and to the customers of Vivendi and
`of T-Mobile both here in the United States and around the world.
`
`Now,| know that this Polish situation seems to be a complicated dispute for everybody becauseit has been there for a number
`of years and becauseit has been played out in several jurisdictions. But in reality, to us, itis a very simple matter.
`
`Wehave, as you know,invested a lot of money in Poland for a long time. We have put some moneyinto a joint venture to
`develop a telecommunications business in Poland, and we haveforseveral years successfully turned this operation, a company
`named PTC,into a leading operator in Poland — into the leading operator in the mobile business in Poland.
`
`Altogether, we invested more than EUR2billion or more than $2.5 billion. But what is amazing is that we have been denied by
`our partneranyright on the investment, without any compensation whatsoever. We believe that T-Mobile has induced Elektrim,
`our joint venture partnerin that investment, to betray us to help T-Mobile to take over our investment, and webelieve that this
`is illegal.
`
`Webelieve that T-Mobile today pretends to own our investmentin PTC without payingforit. We believealso thatthisis illegal.
`And as the complaint states, and as Mr. Davis will tell you, we have seen T-Mobile and Elektrim defy court orders and other
`judicial decisions in Poland and in Austria. We also believe that this is illegal.
`
`To us, the takeover of PTC is a result of a scheme of fraud and collusion initiated by T-Mobile and Elektrim to deprive us of a
`huge amountof money,whichis our investmentof $2.5 billion. Now, we havetried indeedto settle the matter in goodfaith in
`many(technical difficulty) and delaying tactics in our negotiations with T-Mobile and Elektrim. And this has cost Vivendi even
`more moneyand lost opportunities.
`
`And bythe way, | would like to take this opportunity to mention that recently, the Vienna Court of Appeals just rendered a key
`decision which unambiguously confirms Vivendi's position for the last two years -- that our company, the companywecontrol,
`cailed Telco, cannot be affected by the Vienna arbitral award. This decision unequivocally says that T-Mobile's interpretation of
`this award used to take over our investment cannot be reasonably sustained.
`
`As itis stated that T-Mobile and our joint venture partnertried illegally to appropriate our investment in PTC and at every turn
`have defied court orders. Obviously,filing a RICO complaint is a serious matter, but this is a lot of money, and weaskfor a very
`simple remedy-- give us back our moneyor our shares, Fairness and justice must prevail. We cannot be deprived of something
`that belongsto us that we paid for.
`
`Both T-Mobile and Vivendi have substantial operations in the U.S. which are affected by this case. There are sizable business
`revenues, tens of thousandsof U.S. employees, many public shareholders, and of course many customers in T-Mobile's operations
`in the United States and also in Vivendi's operations in the United States. This is why we are now bringing this matter to a U.S.
`court.
`,
`
`Thank you very much. This is just my introductory remarks. Before both of us answer your questions, | wouldlike to introduce
`to you Mr. Lanny Davis, a partnerat Orrick, Herrington& Sutcliffe, who will now take the microphone.
`
`Lanny Davis - Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe - Partner
`
`Thank you very much, Mr. Levy. My name is Lanny Davis. | am a partner at the international law firm of Orrick, Herrington &
`Sutcliffe, LLP. Orrick and our co-counsel, Mr. Robert [Rody] of the firm of [Rody & Van Campen]in Seattle, Washington, are
`representing Vivendi in this RICO casefiled against T-Mobile and Mr. Solorz.
`
` idech
`www.streetevents.com
`Contact Us
`© 2006 ThomsonFinancial. Republished with permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the
`prior written consent of ThomsonFinancial.
`
`
`
`137
`137
`
`

`

`TAB
`TAB
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 1 of 83
`
`08-35561
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`VIVENDI S.A. AND VIVENDI HOLDING I CORP.,
`PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS
`
`V.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.; T-MOBILE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; T-MOBILE
`INTERNATIONAL AG; DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG; AND ZYGMUNT SOLARZ-ZAK,
`DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`Appeal from the
`United States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
`Case No. C06-1524 JLR
`The Honorable James L. Robart
`____________________________________________________
`
`BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
`VIVENDI S.A. AND VIVENDI HOLDING I CORP.
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`____________________________________________________
`
`LANNY J. DAVIS
`GARRET G. RASMUSSEN
`ADAM W. GOLDBERG
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`COLUMBIA CENTER
`1152 FIFTEENTH STREET, NORTHWEST
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-1706
`TELEPHONE: (202) 339-8400
`FACSIMILE: (202) 339-8500
`ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 2 of 83
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 3 of 83
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT........................................................................3
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR REVIEW............................................................3
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE...............................................................................5
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................6
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT......................................................................9
`
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 12
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Standard of Review .......................................................................... 12
`
`Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Substantial Deference................................ 12
`A.
`Both Foreign and Domestic Plaintiffs Are Entitled to
`Deference ............................................................................... 12
`
`B.
`
`The District Court Abused Its Discretion When It Gave
`Vivendi’s Forum Choice Little or No Deference .................... 14
`1.
`The District Court Did Not Consider T-Mobile
`USA’s U.S. Presence and Its Role in the
`Conspiracy ................................................................... 14
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The District Court Gave No Weight to Vivendi’s
`and the T-Mobile Defendants’ Substantial U.S.
`Ties............................................................................... 19
`
`Rather than Credit Vivendi’s Desire for Greater
`Access to Evidence as a Valid Convenience
`Reason, the District Court Improperly Treated It as
`Forum Shopping........................................................... 20
`
`The District Court Committed Clear Error When It
`Found that Vivendi Was Forum Shopping.................... 22
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 4 of 83
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`5.
`
`The District Court Erred When It Determined that
`Vivendi’s RICO Allegations Indicate Improper
`Forum Shopping.......................................................... 24
`
`6.
`
`The District Court Failed to Consider that Neither
`Poland nor the United States Is Vivendi’s Home ......... 25
`VH1 Is Entitled to Substantial Deference .............................. 27
`C.
`The District Court Applied Too Low a Burden of
`Inconvenience Justifying Dismissal................................................. 29
`
`The Private Interest Factors Do Not Weigh in Favor of
`Dismissal......................................................................................... 31
`A.
`The Residence of Parties and Witnesses and the
`Convenience to Litigants Factors Are Neutral ....................... 33
`1.
`The District Court Failed to Hold Defendants to
`Their Burden of Proof.................................................. 34
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`The District Court Failed to Take Into Account
`Modern Advances in Travel and Communications ...... 36
`The Western District is a Forum that Offers Convenient
`Access to Evidence................................................................ 37
`1.
`The District Court Again Failed to Hold
`Defendants to Their Burden of Proof........................... 39
`
`2.
`
`The District Court Failed to Consider the Record
`Evidence that U.S. Discovery Will Actually
`Provide the Parties with Greater Access to
`Evidence...................................................................... 41
`
`3.
`
`The District Court Unreasonably Weighed the
`Potential Necessity of Translation ............................... 44
`Defendants Have Not Evidenced that the “Ability to
`Compel Unwilling Witnesses to Testify” Factor Favors
`Dismissal............................................................................... 44
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 5 of 83
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`The District Court Yet Again Failed to Hold
`Defendants to Their Burden of Proof........................... 45
`
`2.
`
`The District Court Contravened Precedent in
`Determining that the Hague Process Was
`Inconvenient................................................................ 48
`The Cost of Bringing Witnesses to Trial Is Neutral .............. 51
`
`D.
`
`The Last Two Private Interest Factors Are Neutral................ 53
`E.
`The Public Interest Factors Favor the Western District.................... 54
`
`V.
`
`VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 57
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 6 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans,
`821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987) ................................................................... 13, 31
`
`In re Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation,
`228 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)................................................... 37, 49-50
`
`Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.,
`932 F.2d 1540 (5th Cir. 1991) ................................................................... 34, 46
`
`Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`448 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 30, 50
`
`BlackRock, Inc. v. Schroders PLC,
`No. 07 Civ. 3183 (PKL), 2007 WL 1573933 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2007) .......... 21
`
`Bodner v. Banque Paribas,
`114 F. Supp. 2d 117 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)........................................................ 37, 50
`
`Bravo Co. v. Chum, Ltd.,
`60 F. Supp. 2d 52 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).................................................................. 47
`
`Byrne v. British Broadcasting Corp.,
`132 F. Supp. 2d 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).............................................................. 52
`
`C.A. La Seguridad v. Transytur Line,
`707 F.2d 1304 (11th Cir. 1983) ....................................................................... 34
`
`Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration,
`838 F.2d 1374 (5th Cir. 1988) ......................................................................... 34
`
`Cheng v. Boeing Co.,
`708 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1983) ......................................................................... 29
`
`Daventree, Ltd. v. Republic of Azerbaijan,
`349 F. Supp. 2d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).............................................................. 55
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 7 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`DiRienzo v. Philip Services Corp.,
`294 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2002) ........................................................................ 24, 39
`
`Dole Food Co. v. Watts,
`303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................... 29
`
`Excel Plas, Inc. v. Sigmax Co,
`No. 07-CV-578-IEG (JMA), 2007 WL 2853932
`(S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2007)................................................................................ 55
`
`Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen,
`743 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1984) ........................................................ 27, 36, 45-46
`
`General Environmental Science Corp. v. Horsfall,
`753 F. Supp. 664 (N.D. Ohio 1990)................................................................. 55
`
`German Free State of Bavaria v. Toyobo Co.,
`480 F. Supp. 2d 948 (W.D. Mich. 2007).......................................................... 42
`
`Gilstrap v. Radianz Ltd.,
`443 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).........................................................52-53
`
`Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
`330 U.S. 501 (1947) ........................................................................................ 32
`
`Howe v. Goldcorp Investments Ltd.,
`946 F.2d 944 (1st Cir. 1991)............................................................................ 27
`
`Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp.,
`274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) ............................................12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 35-36
`
`Koehler v. NationsBank Corp.,
`No. 96 C 2050, 1997 WL 112836 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 1997).......................... 27
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 8 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,
`862 F.2d 38 (3rd Cir. 1988) ................................................ 13, 25-26, 31, 32, 46
`
`Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,
`932 F.2d 170 (3rd Cir. 1991) .......................................................... 13, 26, 30-31
`
`Lehman v. Cayman,
`713 F.2d 339 (8th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 38
`
`Lerman v. Joyce International, Inc.,
`10 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 27
`
`Lexington Insurance, Co. v. Forrest,
`263 F. Supp. 2d 986 (E.D. Pa. 2003) .............................................. 51-52, 55, 56
`
`Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co,
`886 F.2d 628 (3rd Cir. 1989) ..................................................................... 13, 31
`
`Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co,
`935 F.2d 604 (3rd Cir. 1991) ..................................................................... 13, 31
`
`Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp.,
`236 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................32, 33, 38, 39, 40
`
`Manela v. Garantia Banking Ltd.,
`940 F. Supp. 584 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)............................................ 21, 26, 46-47, 48
`
`Manu International, S.A. v. Avon Products, Inc.,
`641 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1981) .................................................................. 36, 53, 56
`
`Murphy v. Schneider National, Inc.,
`362 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................17-18
`
`National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. BP Amoco, P.L.C.,
`No. 03 Civ. 0200 (GEL), 2003 WL 21180421
`(S.D.N.Y May 20, 2003) ..................................................................... 19, 36, 55
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 9 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Norcold, Inc. v. Greg Lund Prods. Ltd.,
`109 F. Supp. 2d 819 (S.D. Ohio 2000)............................................................. 47
`
`Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Industries, Inc.,
`416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2005) .......................................................... 16, 17, 19, 25
`
`Overseas Programming Cos. v. Cinematographische Commerz-Anstalt,
`684 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1982) ............................................................................ 50
`
`Peabody Holding Co. v. Costain Group PLC,
`808 F. Supp. 1425 (E.D. Mo. 1992)................................................................. 43
`
`Peach v. Shopshire,
`No. CV05-0369C, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9479
`(W.D. Wash. February 23, 2006)..................................................................... 50
`
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) ...................................................................... 12, 27, 30, 34
`
`Rahl v. Bande,
`328 B.R. 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)............................................................. 27, 40, 55
`
`Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa,
`211 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................... 12, 13, 31, 52
`
`Reebok International, Ltd. v. McLaughlin,
`49 F.3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 56
`
`Reers v. Deutsche Bahn AG,
`320 F. Supp. 2d 140 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).............................................................. 53
`
`Reid-Walen v. Hansen,
`933 F.2d 1390 (8th Cir. 1991) ....................................................... 19, 36, 46, 56
`
`Republic of Colombia v. Diageo North America Inc.,
`531 F. Supp. 2d 365 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).............................................................. 55
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 10 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation,
`214 F. Supp. 2d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).............................................................. 20
`
`Roberts v. Heim,
`130 F.R.D. 430 (N.D. Cal. 1990)..................................................................... 38
`
`Royal Industries Ltd. v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,
`926 F. Supp. 407 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)..............................................................47-48
`
`Schijndel v. Boeing Co.,
`263 Fed. Appx. 555 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 55
`
`Shalit v. Coppe,
`182 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 56
`
`In re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria, on November 11, 2000,
`MDL Docket No. 1428 (S.D.N.Y.).................................................................. 42
`
`Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale et al v. United States District
`Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
`482 U.S. 522 (1987) ........................................................................................ 38
`
`Sussman v. Bank of Israel,
`801 F. Supp. 1068 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)................................................................. 27
`
`Technology Development Co. v. Onischenko,
`174 Fed. Appx. 117 (3rd Cir. 2006)........................................................... 13, 15
`
`Travelers Property Causality Co. of America v. DHL Danzas Air & Ocean,
`No. 05 Civ.6303 (DC), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33366
`(S.D.N.Y May 23, 2006) ................................................................................. 36
`
`Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`433 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................. 50, 51, 55
`
`Universe Sales Co. v. Silver Castle, Ltd.,
`182 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 56
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 11 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Van Der Velde v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`No. 02 Civ.783 (BSJ), 2004 WL 48891 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2004) ................20-21
`
`Varnelo v. Eastwind Transport, Ltd.,
`No. 02-2084, 2003 WL 230741 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2003)................................. 48
`
`Webster v. Santa Fe International Corp.,
`
`No. Civ. A 3:98-CV-1314-D, 1999 WL 20840
`(N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 1999) .........................................................................42-43
`
`Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum,
`226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000) ................................................................... 39-40, 52
`
`STATUTES
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), (c), and (d) ............................................................................1
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) ...............................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ....................................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ....................................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) ...............................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367 ....................................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................................................. 36
`
`MISCELLANEOUS
`
`Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or
`Commercial Matters, March 18, 1970 ............................................................. 43
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 12 of 83
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Vivendi S.A. (“Vivendi”) and Vivendi Holding I Corp. (“VH1”)
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the United States District Court for the Western
`
`District of Washington’s dismissal of their lawsuit on grounds of forum non
`
`conveniens. Each plaintiff has distinct claims arising from one single conspiracy
`
`that has violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1962(b), (c), and (d) (“RICO”). In dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims, the
`
`District Court abused its discretion and should be reversed.
`
` The District Court committed many fatal errors of law and fact in its
`
`opinion, but one that poisoned the remainder of its analysis calls for an immediate
`
`response. Contrary to the record, the District Court concluded that Vivendi was
`
`“engaged in forum shopping” and thus deserved little deference. In so doing, the
`
`District Court disregarded the reasons why Plaintiffs chose this forum, including:
`
`first, Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile USA”), which participated in
`
`(and benefited from) the conspiracy, is based in Seattle; second, both Plaintiffs and
`
`Defendants have strong U.S. connections; third, Seattle was the only forum where
`
`personal jurisdiction could be had over all Defendants at the time Plaintiffs filed
`
`suit; and fourth, Defendants committed U.S. wire fraud. The District Court also
`
`disregarded the additional reasons why VH1 filed its suit in Seattle: VH1 is a U.S.
`
`corporation and Vivendi’s action was already pending in Seattle.
`
`OHS East:160477659.14
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 13 of 83
`
`Tellingly, not one of the people who Plaintiffs alleged participated in the
`
`conspiracy on T-Mobile USA’s behalf ever submitted a declaration denying T-
`
`Mobile USA’s involvement – not Robert Dotson or Sue Swenson, who were
`
`officers of T-Mobile USA and board members of Defendant T-Mobile
`
`International AG (“T-Mobile International”); not Kai Uwe-Ricke or Rene
`
`Obermann, the former and current Chairmen of the Board of T-Mobile USA and
`
`CEOs of Defendant Deutsche Telekom AG (“DT”); and not Thomas Winkler, who
`
`was in Seattle at a key moment in the conspiracy and who was responsible for
`
`integrating the stolen Polish telephone company (“PTC”) with T-Mobile USA and
`
`the entire T-Mobile network.
`
` The record flatly contradicts the District Court’s notion that Plaintiffs sued
`
`here because they had lost in Europe. No court or arbitral order exists directing
`
`Vivendi to cede its $2.5 billion investment in PTC. Rather, the T-Mobile
`
`Defendants took control of Vivendi’s PTC shares in defiance of injunctions and
`
`arbitral orders prohibiting the takeover.
`
` Defendants might not like the fact that one of their co-conspirators is based
`
`in Seattle, that they committed U.S. wire fraud and racketeering, that they harmed
`
`General Motors Co. (the assignor of VH1’s claims), and that they and Vivendi
`
`have close ties to this forum, but it is, they have, and they do.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 14 of 83
`
` In abusing its discretion, the District Court committed three fundamental
`
`legal errors: it accorded Plaintiffs’ decision to sue in the Western District
`
`insufficient deference; it applied the wrong standard for dismissal; and it
`
`unreasonably balanced the private and public interest factors, repeatedly failing to
`
`hold Defendants to their burden of proof and disregarding the law and unrebutted
`
`factual allegations.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
`
`(“RICO”) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1367. This Court has jurisdiction
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court granted Defendants’ motions to
`
`dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens and entered a final judgment on June
`
`5, 2008. Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal on June 30, 2008.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR REVIEW
`
`1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by affording little, if
`
`any, deference to Vivendi’s choice of a U.S. forum even though Vivendi chose that
`
`forum because (a) Vivendi has close ties to the United States and transacts
`
`substantial U.S. business, (b) one Defendant is a U.S. company that is
`
`headquartered in the chosen forum, (c) at least one other Defendant has close ties
`
`to the United States and transacts substantial business here, (d) at the time Vivendi
`
`filed this action, the United States was the only forum in which it could sue all
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 15 of 83
`
`Defendants, (e) the Western District provides Plaintiffs with the greatest access to
`
`evidence, (f) Defendants committed U.S. wire fraud, and (g) U.S. courts have a
`
`substantial interest in enforcing RICO and U.S. law.
`
`2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by affording little, if
`
`any, deference to VH1’s choice of a U.S. forum even though, in addition to the
`
`facts stated in Issue 1 above, VH1 acquired GM’s claims for valid business reasons
`
`and VH1 chose the Western District because (a) VH1 is a U.S. company, (b) the
`
`assignor of VH1’s claims is a U.S. company, and (c) Vivendi’s action in the
`
`Western District, based on substantially-related facts, was already pending.
`
`3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it failed to
`
`require Defendants to prove either that it would be oppressive and vexatious for
`
`them to litigate in the United States or, at a minimum, that a strong preponderance
`
`of the private and public interest factors favored an alternative forum.
`
`4. Whether the District Court unreasonably balanced the private and
`
`public interest factors when it failed to factually compare Poland, the only
`
`alternative forum it found adequate, with the United States, when it did not hold
`
`Defendants to their burden of proof, when it did not treat uncontroverted facts in
`
`Plaintiffs’ pleadings as true, when it ignored facts in Plaintiffs’ declarations or
`
`elsewhere in the record, when it did not appropriately consider the multinational
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 16 of 83
`
`nature of this case and Defendants’ resources, and when it committed other legal
`
`and factual errors.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Vivendi sued Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
`
`of Washington on October 23, 2006. The complaint alleged that Defendants stole
`
`Vivendi’s $2.5 billion investment in PTC, committing U.S. wire fraud and
`
`violating RICO. Vivendi filed an amended complaint on October 24, 2006 and a
`
`Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) on February 20, 2007.
`
`On January 9, 2007, Vivendi served discovery requests upon T-Mobile
`
`USA, DT, T-Mobile International, and T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH (collectively,
`
`the “T-Mobile Defendants”), and they responded with a Motion for a Protective
`
`Order. On April 18, 2007, the District Court granted their motion in part,
`
`permitting Vivendi to take only very limited discovery. The T-Mobile Defendants
`
`subsequently objected to producing certain material documents that were outside
`
`the United States. On August 7, 2007, the District Court denied Vivendi’s motion
`
`to compel production of those documents. Accordingly, Vivendi’s discovery did
`
`not reach all documents located within the European files of T-Mobile USA’s
`
`officers and directors that evidence T-Mobile USA’s role in the conspiracy.
`
`The T-Mobile Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC on May 17, 2007.
`
`Vivendi subsequently moved to file a Third Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 08-35561 10/15/2008 ID: 6675643 DktEntry: 15 Page: 17 of 83
`
`or “TAC”) on June 25, 2007. The District Court granted Vivendi’s motion on July
`
`30, 2007. VH1 (as assignee) joined the case as a plaintiff, alleging that Defendants
`
`fraudulently induced General Motors Co. and other U.S. bondholders (collectively,
`
`“GM”) to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding that was the last remaining obstacle
`
`to Defendants’ scheme to steal Vivendi’s shares in PTC.
`
`The T-Mobile Defendants and Solorz