WPC< 5Ul2+62J$ǵZ+ER)5@?e>1A#YΊ&0ľ矤l9EJ;N_sU]YVר#M&t?` 'dZu C9g @9pJ vp52# UjN % 0(# ^ K wW 4[ o ~ m M N UB b M 0 0 D  U >M4" 0V 0= 0= 0> 0CCU> KK 0Y 0  0a 0" 0 09 0 02 0 0: 0 0_ 0  0k 0`! B*'# D3Q# C# D+# 0# 0% 06w& 0& 0:' 0h' 0FW(U6(U>(U*)M;)U<?)U.{)M)M))))M)))() 72)**r...M81<1<1V5V5V5V5M77M7[77 1Y: 1u: B[; 0cx;x;x;M;;; 1;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,l<l<l<l<l<l<l<l<l<M<<<<M<HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($Ɍ,s :,linx3|xU<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -(e(2K$ !    =dd=    0  (#$  0   _2X K  =dd=    4    =dd= ` X2XX2WeexpressnoopiniononthestrengthofJetWine's e argumentsforgeneraljurisdiction. #2XXX2##X2#Դ\( 9Z+&Courier Regular  SpuntCharlesbank0==A.Normal=*XXdd==*XXdd=<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX\( 9Z+&Courier Regular A_2X K  =dd=    5    =dd= ` X2XX2TheadditionalallegedassumptionoftheBombaycontract e haslittletodowithNewHampshire,asthatcontractmadeJetWine - Carillon'srepresentativeforBombayonlyinMaine.#2XXX2##X2# _2X K  =dd=    8    =2XXdd= ` X2XX2Ifthe_Bacardi_Ԁcompanieswerestructuredsothat_BACO_, e althoughtechnicallybrandownerofDewar's,obtainednoeconomic - advantagewhatsoever#2XXX2#X2XX2#XXXX2#X2XXXfromthesaleofDewar's,thatmightleadus  toconsiderJetWine'sbroaderargument,whichcharacterizesthe X _Bacardi_Ԁcompaniesasalteregos.#2XXX2<##X2~#(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK:<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS;\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K:<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS;\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K:<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS;\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I014$ ** ddI  B    ?<%2A`Arial?921*  dd9  XXXS;\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d////'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI014$** ddI  B    ?<%2A`Arial?921*  dd9  XXXS;\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK:<6X9`(Courier NewKS;\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK:<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS;\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  `$Times NewRoman<6X9`(Courier\i) _XXX2XXX K  =dd=    7    =2XXdd= ` Thisargumentonitsowntermsprovestoomuch.Although e _BACO_Ԁsaysthereisnoevidencethattheletterwassubmitted - specificallytoNewHampshire,theletterappearstobeofthesort  thatwouldsatisfyNewHampshire'srequirement.Iftheletterwas X submittedtotheNewHampshireliquorauthoritiesamongthe   authoritiesofotherstatesandwouldsatisfyanecessary M preconditionforthesaleof_BACO_'sproductsinNewHampshire,that   wouldbeatypeofagencyrelevanttothespecificjurisdiction  x assertedhere.Weneednot,though,decideifthatwasthepurpose  @ oftheletter.#XXXX2/##XX# h_2X K  =dd=    6    =2XXdd= ` _BACO_'sobjectionthatthedefinitionoftheDewar's e Businesscomesinthepreambleratherthanthetextofthe - Agreementhasnomerit.ThetextoftheAgreementstatesexpressly  thatthedefinitiongiveninthePreambleapplies.#X2# _2X K  =dd=    2    =2XXdd= ` X2XX2DouglasGibson,whohelpedtonegotiatethetwo e AgreementsandafterwardsbecameVicePresidentandGeneralCounsel - ofBL #2XXX2#X2XX2#XXXX2#X2XXX, testifiedbyaffidavitthatthepartiestotheagreement  neversuggestedinnegotiationsthat_BIL_Ԁtheinitiallyplanned X purchaser,laterreplacedby_BACO_Ԁwouldassume_Diageo_'s   obligationstodistributors. #2XXX2##X2/# _2X K  =dd=    3    =dd= ` X2XX2FrederickJ.Wilson,VicePresident,GeneralCounsel,and e Secretaryof_BUSA_, testifiedbyaffidavitthatthisletterwas - intendedonlyforcertainregulatorypurposes,whichwediscussin  PartIII. #2XXX2##X2# Q_XXX2XXX K  =dd=    1    =2XXdd= ` Atthetimeofthedistrictcourt'sdecisioninthis e case,_BUSA_Ԁwasnamed_Bacardi_ԄMartiniU.S.A.Ithassincechanged - itsname.#XXXX2/##XX#(CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) d(;3$2#  0  .3  0  ( CEMU]emu}AutoList2(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a) " e ] `  !  _=dd=    *,X` XX*8 2 XXdd8+s6    2X X2XX 2@k k  # 2XX X2# LAJX 2#LJJ LAc#>LJJLUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#>Y J>L#>X X >YԈ    @ #>Y  X>X{#>R Q >YFortheFirstCircuit #>Y  Q>R#>X X >Y#XX X>X# X2XXXԈ ^ @<< ____________________  No.012481 :  #XXX X2# X2XXX  @@JETWINE&SPIRITS,INC.,   a@ Plaintiff,Appellant, Z  @tt)v.  :    _BACARDI_Ԁ&COMPANY_LTD_., z  @@<< Defendant,Appellee,  Z  #XXX X2B# X2XXX# 2XX X2J# X2XX 2_BACARDI_Ԁ_LTD_.,#XXX X2# X2XXX# 2XX X2@# X2XX 2@@ #XXX X2# X2XXX# 2XX X2# X2XX 2Ԁ_BACARDI_ԀU.S.A.,INC.,# 2XX X2##X 2f#XX X2XXX   Defendants. *z '#XXX X2b##XXC#XX X2XXX@<< ____________________     @@ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATES@@DISTRICTCOURT J FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE b [Hon.JamesR._Muirhead_,U.S.MagistrateJudge]  @@<< ____________________ 2 @@'Before  _Boudin_,ChiefJudge, R #XXX X2- #?X2XXX#?2XX?X2 #?S2XX?2Lynchand_Lipez_,#SRX?S2y ##RSȻ #XX X2XXXCircuitJudges. 2! ____________________  "      ` EvanT.LawsonwithwhomJ.Mark_Dickison_andLawson& :"$ _Weitzen_,_LLP_wereonbriefforappellant. #R%  ` GeraldJ.Carusowithwhom_Carlene_ԀA._Pennell_,_Nur_Ԅ_ul_Ԅ $' _Haq_,andRubinandRudman,_LLP_wereonbriefforappellee. Z% (    ____________________ &:"* July18,2002 z(#, ____________________#XXX X2p # X2XXX B)$-   *"&/ +    _#XXX X2'##XXQ #8 2 XXd XXd8?2X?X2XX?2  =2XXdd= ` #XXX?X2]#?X2XXXLYNCH,  CircuitJudge .#XXX?X2#?X2XXXThiscaseraisestheissueofthe  exerciseofpersonaljurisdictionbyafederaldistrictcourtover  aninternationalcorporationthathasbeenallocatedcertain  p responsibilitieswithinacomplexcorporatefamily.JetWine&   Spirits,abrokerofalcoholicbeveragesinNewHampshire,appeals @  thedismissal,forlackofpersonaljurisdiction,ofitsaction    basedonstatecontractandtortlawagainstBacardi&Company `  (BACO),anownerofvarioustrademarksandintellectualproperty @  relatedtointernationallysoldalcoholicbeverages.    ` BACOownsseveralbrandsofDewar'sScotchandBombay ` Gin,whichitacquiredfromDiageo,whichhadarelationshipwith  JetWine.JetWinehadpreviouslydistributedDewar'sinseveral 0 NewEnglandstates,includingNewHampshire,andBombayinMaine.  Asdistributor,JetWinehadbeenpartytoacontractwith P subsidiariesofthecompaniesthatmergedtoformDiageo.After 0 BACO'sacquisitionofthebrands,acorporatecousinofBACO p terminatedJetWineasdistributor.JetWinethensuedanumberof P  membersoftheBacardicorporatefamilyonseveraltheories.In " thisappeal,onlyitsclaimsagainstBACOareatissue.JetWine  !p$ saysthatBACOassumedDiageo'scontractualobligationstoJetWine "& andthenreachedintoNewHampshire(amongotherstates)toviolate @$( thecontracttermsanddisruptJetWine'svariousprotected % !* interests.BACOsaysithasnothingtodowithNewHampshire,and, `'", forthatmatter,nothingtodowithJetWine'scontract.We (@$.  concludethatwhatevertheultimatemeritsofJetWine's *%0 substantiveclaims,thereisenoughofaprimafacieshowingto  supporttheexerciseofpersonaljurisdiction,andreverse.H(  <DL!,X` XH @    I. @`       ` Wefirstdescribethefactsaswetakethemforthe `  purposeofthisappeal.AswediscussinmoredetailinPartIII,  @ thefactsofthecaseareatpresentmerelyJetWine'sallegations    sofarasevidencesupportsthemafterpreliminaryjurisdictional `  discovery,supplementedbyBACO'suncontestedallegations.    ` JetWineisaNewHampshirecorporationthatdoes 0  businessinNewHampshireandisownedbytheMartignetti  Corporation,itselfaMassachusettscorporation. #XXX?X2#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2|#?X2XX?2NewHampshire P directlycontrolsallsalesofalcoholinthestatethroughits 0 StateLiquorCommission,andJetWineislicensedtoselltothe p Commission.#XXX?X2##XX#?2X?X2XX?2In1996and1997,JetWinesignedseveralcontracts P withSchieffelin&SomersetCo.bywhichitbecameSchieffelin's  exclusivedistributorinNewHampshire, Vermont, andMaine for  p variousalcoholicbeverages,includingtheWhiteLabelandAncestor   brandsofDewar'sScotch.Thearrangementsweretolastuntilthe @" endof1999,andafterthatcouldbeterminatedbyeitherpartyon  $ thirtydays'notice. Eachcontainedaclausestatingthat"[t]he `"& partiesherebyconsentandsubmittothepersonaljurisdictionof #@( theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtswithintheStateofNewYork." % * JetWinealsoallegesanagreementwithCarillonImporters,by '`", whichitbecameCarillon'srepresentativeinMaineforBombayGin (#.  foranindefiniteperiod. 0*%0 s6 se] `  s   ` BACOisaLiechtensteincorporationwithitsprimary e  placeofbusinessintheBahamas. #XXX?X2 #?X2XXX#?2XX?X23 #?X2XX?2ItiswhollyownedbyBacardi  InternationalLimited(BIL). #?2XX?X2%#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2M%#?X2XXXBILisinturnalmostwhollyowned   (99.88%)byBacardiLimited(BL),aBermudacorporationwithits   primaryplaceofbusinessinBermuda.#XXX?X2i&#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2'&#?X2XX?2BLalsowhollyownsBacardi  @ U.S.A.(BUSA),#?2XX?X2'#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2^'#?X2XXXY #  1      ׀aDelawarecorporationwithitsprimaryplaceof 5   businessinFlorida.#?2XX?X2 (#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2b(#?X2XXXBLservesasaholdingcompanyforthe  `  variousotherBacardicorporations.#XXX?X2)#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2S)#?X2XX?2BACOownsvarioustrademarks U  andotherintellectualpropertyrelatedtothesaleofalcoholic   beverages. #?2XX?X2y*#?X2XX?2#XXX?X27*#?X2XXXBUSAimportsalcoholicbeveragesinto,anddistributes u themin,theUnitedStates.#XXX?X2+#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2S+#?X2XX?2Thereissomeoverlapofofficersand  directorsamongthecorporations:BACO'sPresidentisamongBL's 0 directors,theChairmanofBIL'sBoardofDirectorsisaSenior % VicePresidentofBL,oneofBACO'sVicePresidentsisalsoaVice P PresidentofBL,andtheChairmanofBUSA'sBoardwasamongBL's E alternatedirectorswhenthecomplaintwasfiled. #?2XX?X2,#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2?,#?X2XXX p  ` BACOdoesnobusinessdirectlyinNewHampshire, #XXX?X2.##XX.#?2X?X2XX?2except e  possiblythroughitswebsite,asdescribedbelow. #XXX?X2/#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2/#?X2XX?2Theparties " disputewhetherBACOdoesbusinesstherethroughanagent,as  $ discussedinPartIIIofthisopinion.BACOownsaninternet "& domainname,bacardi.com,thatcorrespondstoasiteontheWorld #@( WideWebathttp://www.bacardi.com. #?2XX?X20#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2>0#?X2XXXItalsoownsclubbacardi.com, 5% * forwhichnoWebsitepresentlyexists.#XXX?X2I2#?X2XXX#?2XX?X22#?X2XX?2FromNovember1998to &`", September1999,http://www.bacardi.comsoldsomeBacardi U(#. promotionalitems(clothingandkeychains,notalcohol),including e twosalestoNewHampshireaddressesforatotalof$30.75.#?2XX?X2(3#?X2XX?2#XXX?X22#?X2XXXThis  moneywenttoNationalCorporateServicesUnlimited,anunrelated   companythatbuysmerchandisefromBUSAandsellsitovertheWeb   site.#XXX?X24#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2u4#?X2XX?2BACOalsoownsdewars.com,dewarsscotch.com,and  @ bombaysapphire.com,eachofwhichcorrespondstoaWebsite.#?2XX?X26#?X2XX?2#XXX?X25#?X2XXXJet 5   WinehasshownnosalesfromthoseWebsitesinNewHampshire.  `   #XXX?X27#?X2XXX#?2XX?X26#?X2XX?2BACOownsonetrademark,"HavanaClub,"thatisregisteredinNew U  Hampshire. #?2XX?X28#?X2XX?2#XXX?X27#?X2XXX    ` Schieffelin,JetWine'sformersourceforDewar's,wasa u subsidiaryofGuinness.#XXX?X28#?X2XXX#?2XX?X28#?X2XX?2Carrillon,JetWine'sformersourcefor  Bombay,wasasubsidiaryofGrandMetropolitan.#?2XX?X29#?X2XX?2#XXX?X29#?X2XXXIn1997,Guinness 0 andGrandMetropolitanbegannegotiatingamergerthateventually % producedDiageo.#XXX?X2:#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2:#?X2XX?2Themergerencounteredoppositionfromthe P FederalTradeCommission,whichdemandedthatDiageosellsomeof E itsoperationstopreservecompetitionthatthemergerwould p otherwiseeliminate.#?2XX?X2;#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2;#?X2XXXAmongthoseoperationswereDewar'sand e  Bombay.#XXX?X2|=#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2:=#?X2XX?2OnMarch27,1998,BL'sCEO,actingforBACOandfor " WilliamLawsonDistillers(anothersubsidiaryofBL),signedtwo  $ AssetPurchaseAgreementswithDiageoforassetsrelatedtothe "& Dewar'sandBombaybrands.#?2XX?X2E>#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2>#?X2XXXBACOagreed"[o]nthetermsandsubject #@( totheconditionssetforth[intheAgreements]...toassumeand 5% * dischargeorperformwhendueallAssumedLiabilities.""Assumed &`", Liabilities"asdefinedintheDewar'sAgreementinclude U(#.   <% <DL! X<allliabilitiesandobligationsthatariseoutofor )%0 relatetotheTransferredAssets(includingunderany *H&1 Contract)[or]theDewar'sBusiness...totheextent u+'2 attributabletooccurrencesandcircumstancesarisingon =,'3 orfollowingtheClosing,includinganyobligationsto e deliverfinishedcasegoodsfollowingtheClosingunder - purchaseordersof,orcommitmentsto,Personsotherthan  AffiliatesofSeller. X AA -A <(  <DL!  X< "Contract"isdefinedbyreferencetoascheduleattachedtothe M Agreement,whichdoesnotmentionJetWineorNewHampshire,andin  x additiontoinclude"comparableagreements...withrespectto m   anymarketsotherthantheMajorMarkets...thataresolely    relatedtoDewar's."TheUnitedStatesisamongthe"Major (  Markets,"and JetWine'sagreementwithSchieffelinwasnotsolely   relatedtoDewar's.Anotherschedule,listingdistributorsfor H  Dewar's,doesmentionJetWineastherelevantNewHampshire = Distributor. The"Dewar'sBusiness"isdefinedinthepreambleto h theDewar'sAgreement,towhichthebodyoftheAgreementrefers, ] as"themarketing,salesanddistributionofScotchwhiskyunder  tradenamesortrademarksthatincludeoneormoreoftheterms } 'Dewar's,''Ancestor,''NePlusUltra,'and'WhiteLabel.'"The   BombayAgreementcontainsidenticallanguageregardingassumption 8 ofliabilities,exceptthatitrefersinsteadtothe"Bombay -! Business,"whichitdefinesas"themarketing,salesand X# distributionofginundertradenamesortrademarksthatinclude M!% oneormoreoftheterms'Bombay'and'Sapphire.'"P #  2      #XXX?X2?#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2?#?X2XX?2  "x'   ` OnJune15,BACOgaveBILaworldwideexclusivelicense m$ ) tousetheDewar'sandBombayBrands.#?2XX?X2J#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2J#?X2XXXBILthenappointedBUSAas %!+ theUnitedStatesdistributorofthosebrands.#XXX?X2L#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2K#?X2XX?2Onthesameday, e BUSAsentletterstoJetWinethatterminatedJetWineasthe  brokerforDewar'sinNewHampshire,VermontandMaine.#?2XX?X2L#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2L#?X2XXXOnJune   16,itprovidedaletterforBUSA'slegaldepartmentaddressed"To   WhomItMayConcern."#XXX?X2N##XXM#XX?X2XXXTheJune16lettersaidthatBUSAwasthe  @ "exclusivebrandagentanddistributor"and"PrimaryAmerican 5   Sourceofsupply"fortheDewar'sandBombaybrandsintheUnited  `  States.#XXX?X2,O#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2 O#?X2XX?2ItalsoauthorizedBUSA"totakealllegalstepsnecessary U  toeffectuatethesaleofourproductsintheUnitedStatesof   America,includingbutnotlimitedto,makinganyandallfilings u fortheregistrationandsaleofourproductswhichmayberequired  underStateorFederallawsandregulations."#XXX?X2]P#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2P#?X2XX?2Theletterwas 0 signedbyLindaBeidlerD'Aguilar,BACO'sAssistantVicePresident, % LegalandTrademark.R #  3      ׀#?2XX?X2R#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2`R#?X2XXXNoevidenceintherecordindicatesdirectly P who,ifanyone,receivedthisletterotherthanBUSA. E   II. p    ` AsaresultoftheJune15terminations,JetWinefiled e  thislawsuitonDecember4,1998,intheDistrictofNewHampshire, " namingBL,BACO,andBUSAasdefendants.Itallegedinits  $ complaintfourclaims:(1)breachofcontractagainstBACOalone, "& (2)intentionalinterferencewithcontractualrelationsagainstall #@( threedefendants,(3)intentionalinterferencewithadvantageous 5% * businessrelationsagainstallthreedefendants,and(4)violation &`", ofNewHampshire'sconsumerprotectionstatuteagainstallthree e defendants. OnMarch4,1999,BLandBACOmovedtodismissfor  lackofpersonaljurisdiction;BUSAdidnot.#?2XX?X2S#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2 T#?X2XXX    ` Afterlimitedjurisdictionaldiscovery, thedistrict   courtgrantedthemotionstodismissinanunpublishedorder. The  @ courtappliedtheprimafaciestandarddiscussedinthiscircuit's 5   caseofBoitv.GarTecProducts,Inc.,967F.2d671,67576(1st  `  Cir.1992).Underthatstandarditconcluded,first,thatBACO's U  "HavanaClub"trademark,itsnationalrevenuesfromother   trademarks,anditswebsitedidnotamounttominimumcontacts u necessarytosupportgeneralpersonaljurisdictionbyaNew  Hampshirecourt ;second,thattheJune16letterdidnotsupportan 0 inferencethatBUSAactedasBACO'sagentsoastopermitthecourt % toimputeBUSA'scontactswithNewHampshiretoBACO ;and,third, P thatthetwoAgreementswereunrelatedtoNewHampshireandso E indicatednodirectcontactwithNewHampshirebyBACO .Thecourt p alsorejectedJetWine'sargumentsforpersonaljurisdictionover e  BL.OnSeptember1,2000,itgrantedjudgmentonthepleadingsfor " BUSAonJetWine'sstateconsumerprotectionclaim, andon  $ September13,2001,summaryjudgmentforBUSAonJetWine's "& remainingclaims.  #@(  ` Inthisappeal,JetWinehaschallengedonlythedistrict 5% * court'sdecisiontodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdictionits &`", claimsagainstBACO.ItarguesthatBACO'scontactswithNew U(#. Hampshiresupportbothspecificjurisdiction(astoboththetort )%0 andcontractclaims)andgeneraljurisdictionoverBACO.In u+'2 response,BACOdefendsthedistrictcourt'sjudgmentonthegrounds e given,andalsoarguesthatevenifthecontactsmightsufficefor  jurisdiction,theexerciseofjurisdictionwouldbeunreasonable   becauseofthatsetofconsiderationsthiscircuithascalledthe   "gestaltfactors."SeeFosterMiller,Inc.v.Babcock&Wilcox  @ Canada,46F.3d138,150(1stCir.1995). 5     III.  `    A.Applicablelaw U   ` Wereviewdenovoadistrictcourt'sdecisiontodismiss   forlackofpersonaljurisdictionwhenthecourtheldno u evidentiaryhearingbutinsteadconductedonlyaprimafaciereview  ofthejurisdictionalfacts.Boit,967F.2dat675.N#XXX?X2X##XX>X#XX?X2XXXoparty 0 objectedthenornowtotheprimafaciestandard,andsoweinquire % onlywhetherthemagistratejudgereachedthecorrectdecision P underthestandardhechose.Id. E  ` Indeterminingpersonaljurisdiction,wefirstask p whetherthatjurisdictionwasauthorizedbystatute.Thiscircuit e  hasheldthatundertheapplicableNewHampshirelongarmstatute, " thecourtsofNewHampshire(andthereforethefederaldistrict  $ courtinNewHampshire)mayexercisepersonaljurisdictionoverany "& unregisteredforeigncorporationiftheConstitutionpermits. #@( Sawtellev.Farrell,70F.3d1381,1388(1stCir.1995).The 5% * questionpresentedbythisappealisthereforewhetherthe &`", Constitution,specificallytheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth U(#. Amendment,permitsthecourtsofNewHampshiretoexercisepersonal )%0 jurisdictionoverBACO.JetWinepresentsanumberoftheorieson u+'2 whichitarguesdueprocessdoespermitthatexercise.Weaddress e onlyoneofthosetheories:thatthetwoAgreementsandtheJune16  letter,viewedunderthegenerousprimafaciestandardandinlight   oftheotherfactsofthecase,demonstratesufficientcontacts   withNewHampshire,outofwhichJetWine'sclaimsarose,that  @ specificjurisdictionisconsistentwithdueprocess. #  4      Weagree, 5   andagreemoreoverthattheconsiderationsoffairnessandpolicy  `  embodiedbythegestaltfactorsdonotrequireadifferentresult U  inthiscase.    ` Thiscircuitrecentlydecided#XXX?X2Sd#?X2XXX#?2XX?X24d#?X2XX?2Daynardv.Ness,Motley, u Loadholt,Richardson&Poole,P.A.,290F.3d42(1stCir.2002)#?2XX?X2l#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2l#?X2XXX,  whichdiscussestherelevantlaw.Indeed,thelegalissuesofthat 0 casearesomewhatanalogoustothosebeforeustoday.Wewill % restatethelawonlybriefly.Astheplaintiff,JetWinebearsthe P burdenofestablishingpersonaljurisdiction.Todothat,itmust E showthatBACOhashad"certainminimumcontacts"withNew p Hampshire"suchthatmaintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffend e  'traditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice.'"Int'l " ShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310,316(1945)(quotingMilliken  $ v.Meyer,311U.S.457,463(1940)).Foritscontractclaim,the "& typeofclaimdiscussedinDaynard,JetWinemayaskthecourtto #@( drawinferencesfrom"theparties''priornegotiationsand 5% * contemplatedfutureconsequences,alongwiththetermsofthe &`", contractandtheparties'actualcourseofdealing.'"Daynard,290 U(#. F.3dat52(quotingBurgerKingCorp.v.Rudzewicz,471U.S.462, e 479(1985)).Itcouldshow,forexample,that"thedefendant's  contactswiththeforumwereinstrumentaleitherintheformation   ofthecontractorinitsbreach#XXX?X2m##XXm#XX?X2XXX."PhillipsExeterAcad.v.Howard   PhillipsFund,196F.3d284,289(1stCir.1999).Foritstort  @ claims,JetWinemustshowasufficient"causalnexus"between 5   BACO'scontactswithNewHampshireandJetWine'scausesofaction.  `  Id.  U    ` ThecontactsneednotbeactionsdirectlytakenbyBACO.   Instead,JetWinemayrelyinwholeorinpartonactionsimputed u toBACOthroughitsagentsasindeeditmust,becauseanyaction  legallyattributedtoacorporationisthatofoneagentor 0 another.Theexacttypeofagencyrelationshipusedtoimpute % contactsisnotcrucialtoourinquiryregardingtraditional P notionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice,norarethetechnical E differencesbetweenthestates'differentrulesofagencyvital. p Daynard,290F.3dat5657("[T]hequestionbeforeusiswhethera e  sufficientrelationshipexistsundertheDueProcessClauseto " permittheexerciseofjurisdiction,notwhetherapartnership,  $ jointventure,orotherparticularagencyrelationshipbetweenthe "& twodefendantsexists."#XXX?X2t##XXs#?2X?X2XX?2). #@( B.Applicationtothefacts 5% * 1.Directandimputedcontacts &`",  ` ThemostimportantcontactthatJetWineallegesbetween U(#. BACOandNewHampshireisBACO'sallegedassumptionof )%0 Schieffelin'sobligationsundertheDewar'scontractwhenBACOand u+'2 DiageosignedtheDewar'sAgreement. #  5      ׀AsinDaynard,thequestion e wefaceisnotprimarilywhetherBACO'sassumptionofthe  obligationsconstitutesacontactwiththestateofNewHampshire,   orwhetherJetWine'sclaimsariseoutofthatcontact,butwhether   JetWinehasmadeaprimafacieshowingthatBACOdidassumethose  @ obligations. 5    ` Althoughtheburdenofproofislight,JetWinemaynot  `  relyonthemereallegationsofitscomplaint,butmustpointto U  specificfactsintherecordthatsupportthoseallegations.   Daynard,290F.3dat51.Theprimaryfactproducedisthe u provisionintheDewar'sAgreementbywhichBACOassumed"all  liabilitiesandobligationsthatariseoutoforrelatetothe 0 TransferredAssets(includingunderanyContract)[or]theDewar's % Business."#?2XX?X2z#?X2XX?2#XXX?X2y#?X2XXXJetWinearguesthatitscontractwithSchieffelin P createsanobligationthatarisesoutof,andrelatesto,the E Dewar'sBusiness,definedas"themarketing,salesanddistribution p ofScotchwhisky"underthetradenameshereatissue.L #  6      ׀ Weagree e  thatisaquiteplausibleinterpretation,sufficientforaprima " facieshowingofjurisdiction.Themeritsoftheinterpretation  $  mayberesolvedlater. "&  ` BACOobjectsthatthislanguagedoesnotinclude e  Schieffelin'sobligationstoJetWinebecausetheAgreement  enumeratestheassumedContractsintheMajorMarkets,andJet   Wine,althoughinaMajorMarket,isnotonthelist. BACOalso   pointsoutthatthelanguagelimitsassumedobligationstothose  @ "arisingonorfollowingtheClosing"ofthetransaction.#XXX?X2着#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2[#?X2XX?2Further, 5   itreliesonthetestimonyofseveralrepresentativesofBL,some  `  ofwhomwerepresentatthenegotiation,thatBACOdidnotintend U  toassumeSchieffelin'sobligationstodistributorssuchasJet   Wine.#XXX?X2E##XX#XX?X2XXXAstoBACO'sfirstargumentaboutthedefinitionof u Contracts,first,thereferencetoContractsusestheword  "including,"indicatingthatBACOmayhaveassumedobligations 0 otherthanContractsasdefined;second,thereferencetoContracts % canbereadtoqualifyonlyBACO'sassumptionofliabilitiesand P obligationsthatariseoutoforrelatetotheTransferredAssets, E andnotthosethatariseoutoforrelatetotheDewar'sBusiness. p Ifitcanbereadotherwise,BACOcanattempttoprovethatother e  readingaspartofitsdefenseonthemerits. "  ` AstoBACO'ssecondargumentaboutthetimingofthe  $ obligation,wefindsufficientforajurisdictionalshowingJet "& Wine'sanswerthat,becausethedisputedpassagerefersto #@( "obligationstodeliverfinishedcasegoodsfollowingtheClosing 5% * underpurchaseordersof,orcommitmentsto,Personsotherthan &`", AffiliatesofSeller," #XXX?X2/#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2#?X2XX?2 itmustencompassatleastsomecontracts U(#. formedbeforetheclosingtookplace.Similarly,thetestimonyof )%0 thosepresentatBACO'snegotiationswithDiageomayperhapsbe u+'2 helpfultoBACO'sdefenseonthemeritsbutisinsufficientina e primafacieinquirytoundermineJetWine'sargumentbasedonthe  languageoftheAgreement.    ` ThesecondsignificantcontactthatJetWinealleges   betweenBACOandNewHampshireisBUSA'sterminationofJetWineas  @ thedistributorofDewar'sinNewHampshireandBUSA'ssubsequent 5   useofanotherdistributorforDewar'sinNewHampshire.JetWine  `  claimsthatthedistrictcourtshouldhaveimputedtheseactionsto U  BACOforjurisdictionalpurposesbecauseBUSAactedasBACO's   agent.AlettersenttoaNewHampshirecorporation,locatedin u NewHampshire,terminatinganagreementtodistributegoodsinNew  Hampshire,isacontactwiththestateofNewHampshire,andBACO 0 doesnotdisputethis. %  ` Amorecomplicatedandgenuinelydisputedquestionis P whetheracourtcanfairlyattributetheterminationlettertoBACO E inassessingBACO'scontactswithNewHampshire.JetWineargues p atlengththatBACO'srelationshipwiththeotherBacardicompanies e  issointertwinedastojustifytreatingthecorporationsasalter " egosandtheirofficersinterchangeably. Wedonotadoptthat  $ premisetoday.JetWine'sargumentwouldfailevenwereweto "& assumethatthestandardfortreatingtwocorporationsasonefor #@( jurisdictionalpurposesmightbelessburdensometoplaintiffsthan 5% * thestandardforpiercingthecorporateveilinordertoimpose &`", liability.Cf.Donatelliv.Nat'lHockeyLeague,893F.2d459, U(#. 46566(1stCir.1990)(discussingthepresumptionofcorporate )%0 separatenessandtheevidenceneededtoovercomeit)#XXX?X2 ##XXM#XX?X2XXX.Theargument u+'2 wouldfailbecauseJetWinehasproducedlittlerecordevidenceto e supportitbesidesBACO'sadmissionthattheBacardicompanies  shareafewcommonofficersanddirectors.JetWinehasalso,   however,arguedthatevenifBACOandBUSAaregenerally   independent,theJune16lettersupportsaninferencethatBUSAwas  @ BACO'sagentforthepurposeofdistributingDewar'sinNew 5   Hampshire,becausetheletteridentifiesBUSAasBACO's"exclusive  `  brandagentanddistributor"andauthorizesBUSA"totakealllegal U  stepsnecessarytoeffectuatethesaleofourproductsinthe   UnitedStatesofAmerica." Thissecond,narrowerargumentsupports u theexerciseofpersonaljurisdiction.   ` BACOrespondsthattheJune16letterservesaspecific 0 purposerelevantonlytotheregulationoftheliquorindustryand % nottobroaderconceptsofagency.Theletter,itexplains,was P intendedonlytoidentifyBUSAastheprimarysourceofsupplyfor E Dewar'sandBombay. ThatidentificationisusefultoBUSAbecause p itsatisfiestherequirementsofstatestatutesorregulationsthat e  requirewholesalersanddistributorstopurchaseliquorproducts " fromtheirprimarysource.NewHampshire,asacontrolstate,has  $ ananalogousstatute,whichrequirestheStateLiquorCommissionto "& purchasefromprimarysourcesandtoexplainanyexceptionsit #@( makes.N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.176:17(Supp.2001).Presumablyto 5% * complywiththisdirective,theLiquorCommissionhasissueda &`", regulationthatrequiresanysupplierseekingtoselltothe U(#. Commissiontostatetheprimarysourceforitsproducts,andto )%0 provideacopyofan"exclusiveagentagreement"ifthesupplieris u+'2 notitselftheprimarysource.N.H.CodeAdmin.R.Ann.Liq e 301.02(p)(defining"primarysource");id.302.01(h)(2)(i)(j)  (statingrequirements).Noneofthis,saysBACO,requireditto   makeBUSAitsagentasthattermisgenerallyusedinthelaw,and   neitherBACOnorBUSAunderstoodtheJune16lettertogiveBUSA  @ generalauthoritytobindBACO.J #  7      #XXX?X2#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2#?X2XX?2ԀBACOsupportsthisassertionwith 5   anaffidavitfromBUSA'sgeneralcounsel.   `   ` Inourview,thelanguageoftheletter,whichauthorizes U  BUSA"totakealllegalstepsnecessarytoeffectuatethesaleof   ourproductsintheUnitedStatesofAmerica,includingbutnot u limitedto,makinganyandall[regulatory]filings," isbroader  thanBACOsuggests.Wewouldnotexpectthetermsofan 0 authorizationlimitedtoregulatorypurposestodefineitsscopeas % "includingbutnotlimitedto"thosepurposes.Moreover,forBACO P tocharacterizethewordsusedintheletterastermsofart E specifictotheindustry(asopposedtotermsofartgeneraltothe p legalprofession)itmustproducemoreevidenceoftheir e  specializedmeaningthanaconclusoryaffidavitbythegeneral " counselofarelatedcompanyandcodefendant.Accordingly,wedo  $ notneedtosaythatthelettermustnecessarilyhavebeen "& submittedtoNewHampshire'sStateLiquorCommission,asJetWine e argues#XXX?X2=#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2#?X2XX?2.Itisenoughthattheexistenceofthelettersatisfies  JetWine'sburdentosupportwithspecificfactsintherecordits   allegationthatBUSAactedasBACO'sagentinterminatingJetWine   astheDewar'sdistributorforNewHampshire.  @ 2.Furtherconstitutionalanalysis 5   a.Relatedness  `   ` BecauseweareaddressingJetWine'stheoryofspecific, U  ratherthangeneral,personaljurisdiction,wemustconsider   whetherJetWine'sclaimsagainstBACOariseoutoforarerelated u toBACO'scontactswithNewHampshire.SeeDaynard,290F.3dat  60.Forthecontractclaim,theanswerisastraightforwardyes. 0 JetWine'sactionagainstBACOforbreachofcontractarisesoutof % BACO'sallegedassumptionofJetWine'scontractwithSchieffelin. P Thatassumption,ifitoccurred,wasacontactwiththestateof E NewHampshirethatrelatesintimatelytoJetWine'sclaim.See p McGeev.Int'lLifeIns.Co.,355U.S.220,223(1957)("Itis e  sufficientforpurposesofdueprocessthat[a]suit[is]basedon " acontractwhichhadsubstantialconnectionwiththatState.")#XXX?X2##XX$#XX?X2XXX.  $ OurconclusionthatBUSA'sactions,whichincludedtheletter "& terminatingJetWine,canfairlybeattributedtoBACOincreases #@( furtherourconfidenceinthispoint. 5% *  ` Ordinarily,thepersonaljurisdictionanalysisfortort &`", claimsdiffersfromthatforcontractclaims.SeePhillipsExeter U(#. Acad.,196F.3dat289(describingthedistinction).When, )%0 however,thetortisintentionalinterferencewithacontractualor u+'2 businessrelationship,thetwoinquiriesbegintoresembleeach e other.Intentionalinterferencewithacontractualorbusiness  relationshipconcerningthesaleofgoodsinNewHampshireisa   contactwithNewHampshireformuchthesamereasonsthatthe   assumptionofthecontractissuchacontact.Cf.FarW.Capital,  @ Inc.v.Towne,46F.3d1071,107980(10thCir.1995)(observing 5   thattheSupremeCourt'sdecision inBurgerKing,"although  `  specificallyaddressedtoabreachofcontractclaim,provide[s]a U  usefulframework"foracaseinvolvingintentionalinterference   withcontractualrelations).  u b.Purposefulavailment   ` JetWinemustalsodemonstratethatBACOpurposefully 0 availeditselfoftheprivilegeofdoingbusinessinNewHampshire. % Ultimately,ofcourse,BACOasthebrandownermustsurelybenefit P fromthesaleofDewar'sinNewHampshirethroughBUSA. #  8      ׀That E ultimatebenefitisnotsufficient,however,toestablishthe p personaljurisdictionoftheNewHampshirecourtsoverBACO. e  Instead,theremustbesomevoluntaryactionthatBACOhastaken " thatshouldhaveputitfairlyonnoticethatitmightonedaybe  $ calledtodefenditselfinaNewHampshirecourt.SeeDaynard,290 "& F.3dat61("Thecornerstonesuponwhichtheconceptofpurposeful #@(  availmentrest[s]arevoluntarinessandforeseeability.")(quoting 5% * Sawtelle,70F.3dat1391)(alterationinoriginal)(internal e quotationmarksomitted).    ` IfBACOassumedthevariousobligationsofDiageotoits   distributorsintheDewar'sAgreement,includingSchieffelin'sto   JetWine,thatwasavoluntaryactfromwhichBACOshouldhave  @ knownthatitwasrenderingitselfliabletosuitinmanyplaces 5   throughouttheworld.Fromtheschedulesattachedtothe  `  Agreement,itknewthatoneofthoseplaceswasNewHampshire. U   BACOmaintains,ofcourse,thatitneverdidanysuchthingbut,   aswehavediscussedearlier,itsargumentdoesnotcarrytheday u undertheburdenofproofandstandardofreviewapplicabletothis  case.Similarly,ifBACOurgedDiageotoviolateitslegal 0 obligationstothosedistributors,thatwasavoluntaryactfor % whichitshouldhaveknownthatthedistributorsmightwellsue. P Whencombined,thosevoluntaryacts,whichledtotheabilityof E theBacardicompanies,includingBACO,tosellDewar'sinNew p Hampshireandgeneraterevenuefromthatsale,constitute e  sufficientlypurposefulavailmenttosatisfytherequirementsof " dueprocess.  $ c.Gestaltfactors "&  ` Acourtweighingtheexerciseofpersonaljurisdiction #@( mustalsoconsidertheapplicabilityofnumerousotherconcerns, 5% * whichthiscircuithasnamedthe"gestaltfactors."Theyare: &`",  <% <DL! X< (1)thedefendant'sburdenofappearing,(2)theforum U(#. state'sinterestinadjudicatingthedispute,(3)the )$/ plaintiff'sinterestinobtainingconvenientand )%0 effectiverelief,(4)thejudicialsystem'sinterestin *H&1  obtainingthemosteffectiveresolutionofthe u+'2 controversy,and(5)thecommoninterestsofall e sovereignsinpromotingsubstantivesocialpolicies. -   ۾ <(  <DL!  X<FosterMiller,46F.3dat150.Wewillreviewtheseinorder. X First,weacknowledgethatthereissomeburdenonBACOifitmust M appearinNewHampshire'scourts.NewHampshireisfarremoved  x fromLiechtenstein,whereBACOisincorporated,andalsofarfrom m   theBahamas,BACO'sprimaryplaceofbusiness.BACOis,however,    aninternationalcorporationthatonthefactsaswetakethem (  ЄdoesbusinessintheUnitedStates,includingthroughits   purportedagent,BUSA.Itcannotwhollyexpecttoescapethereach H  ofUnitedStatescourts. =  ` Second,NewHampshiredoeshaveaninterestin h adjudicatingthisdispute.Thesourceoftheparties'disputeis ] acontracttowhichoneofthepartiesisaNewHampshire  corporationthatdoesbusinessinNewHampshire,andwhichgoverns } thesaleofliquorinNewHampshire.NewHampshirehasa   legitimateandconstitutionalinterestinregulatingcommercial 8 transactionsthatareperformedwithinitsborders,aswellasin -! enforcingthecontractsenteredbyitsbusinessesandinprotecting X# thosebusinessesfrompracticessuchasintentionalinfringement M!% withcontractualrelations. "x'  ` Third,JetWinehasaninterestinobtainingrelief m$ ) throughtheNewHampshirecourts,thecourtsofitsownstate.Its %!+ viewofitsinterestisdemonstratedbyitschoicetobringsuit '(#- there.Moreover,nothingaboutthiscasesuggeststhatthose )$/ courtswillhaveanydifficultyrenderingeffectivereliefagainst *H&1 BACOifJetWinetriesitscasethereandwins. =,'3  ` Fourth,wedonotseeanyparticularinterestofthe e judicialsystemassuchthatpushesforonejurisdictionaloutcome  oranotherinthiscase.    ` Fifth,totheextentthatthiscasetouchesonthecommon   interestsofsovereigns,thoseinterestsweighinfavorofthe  @ constitutionalityofjurisdiction.BACOandtheotherBacardi 5   companieshavechosentostructuretheirbusinessaffairssoasto  `  takeadvantageoftheprivilegesofthecorporateform.Those U  privilegesareessentialtomoderneconomiclifeandthiscourt   mustscrupulouslyprotectthem,exceptinrarecircumstancesthat u thiscasedoesnotpresent.If,however,BACOhasdonebusinessin  NewHampshire,directlyorthroughanagent,orhasdirectedits 0 actionsatNewHampshirefromoutsidethestate,itmightfrustrate % therelevantstatesubstantivesocialpolicies(thoseembodiedin P itscontractandtortlaw)toinsulateBACOfromthelegal E consequencesofitsactions.Cf.Pritzkerv.Yari,42F.3d53,64 p (1stCir.1994)("Here,themostsalientsuchpolicyis...the e  discouragementofspeculationinlitigation.Allsovereignsshare " bothageneralinterestinpreventingsuchspeculationanda  $ specificinterestinrespectingPuertoRico'sdecisiontocontrol "& thisactivitythroughregulation.#XXX?X2O##XX0#?2X?X2XX?2").#XXX?X2X#?X2XXX#?2XX?X2w#?X2XX?2ԀOnthefactsaswemusttake #@( themforthisappeal,BACOhasdonethosethings,andmustdefend 5% * itsactionsinNewHampshire.#XXX?X2##XX#XX?X2XXX &`",  ` Ofthefivegestaltfactors,threeweighinfavorof U(#. personaljurisdictionandoneagainst.Accordingly,weholdthat )%0 personaljurisdictionisproper.Weaddafinalnoteaddressingan u+'2 argumentmadebyBACObeforethiscourt.BACOsaysthat,because e theagreementsbetweenSchieffelinandJetWinecontainclauses  consentingtothejurisdictionofthefederaldistrictcourts   withinNewYorkastheforaforresolvingdisputes,itis   unreasonabletosubjectBACOtothejurisdictionofNewHampshire.  @ Contractuallanguageconsentingtothejurisdictionofoneforum, 5   however,isnotthesameaslanguagespecifyingoneforumand  `  excludingallothers.Cf.AutoridaddeEnergiaElectricav. U  EricssonInc.,201F.3d15,1819(1stCir.2000)(readinga   similarclausetobe"anaffirmativeconferralofpersonal u jurisdictionbyconsent,andnotanegativeexclusionof  jurisdictioninothercourts").Towhateverlimitedextentsuch 0 nonexclusivelanguageisrelevanttoourinquiryunderthegestalt % factors(andwedonotmeantoimplythatevenexclusivelanguage P wouldnecessarilyrequireadifferentresult)itisinsufficient E tochangetheoutcomeinthiscase. p   IV. e     ` Theconstitutionalanalysisrequiredbythiscircuit's " establishedprecedentleadstotheconclusionthatthedistrict  $ courthaspersonaljurisdictionoverBACO.Ourdecisionis,of "& course,limitedtothelegalissuespresentedandourmandatewill #@( notnecessarilyrequirethatthiscasegototrialintheDistrict 5% * ofNewHampshire.WeexpressnoopiniononwhetherBACOmay &`", successfullymovetodismissorforsummaryjudgment.Those U(#.  questionsareforthedistrictcourtinthefirstinstance. )%0  ` Forthereasonswehavegiven,thejudgmentofthe e  districtcourtisreversedandthecaseisremandedforfurther  proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.#XXX?X2/##XX#