[b0000000000m]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again if you dont mind, which court will you be filing in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also an attorney. FYI, to those of you who don't think US courts have jurisdiction over Neteller -- you're dead wrong. OP could file in pretty much any Federal court. Neteller's substantial and continuous contact with US customers establishes jurisdiction.

For Christ's sake, the first thing they teach you in Civil Procedure is the case where an Argentenian helicopter company was successfully sued in Federal court, even though it had no US based offices and did no business with US suppliers. Minimum contacts doctrine ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're referring to Helicopteros Nacionales (466 U.S 408) you'd be wrong. SCOTUS held in that case that the Colombian company's mere purchases of helicopters in TX did not satisfy the minimum contacts test and consequently fell outside the reach of their long-arm statute

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree that PPG is wrong about the outcome of the case with respect to the particular parties, and it's not true that jurisdiction was established over the helicopter company, I would have to say that the doctrine established in the same case WOULD help anyone trying to sue Neteller. Neteller's service of US customers does satisfy the minimum contacts test of Helicopteros. PPG was right insofar as the case sets up the minimum contacts standard in such a way as it's plainly satisfied by the facts of Neteller's situation.

Don't you agree? I'm guessing your post was merely a correction of the facts of the case, rather than a dismissal of the claim that Neteller can be reached by U.S. courts, because it seems plainly the case that that's true.