Should this Court address and resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies among the Federal Circuits and the State Courts on the issue of general jurisdiction under long arm statutes over a nonresident corporation and non-domiciliaries conducting business in this country in order to provide a US based local forum for resolution of commercial, banking and financial disputes and victims of tortious or unlawful conduct?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Should this Court address and resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies among the Federal Circuits and the State Courts on the issue of general jurisdiction under long arm statutes over a nonresident corporation and non-domiciliaries conducting business in this country in order to provide a US based local forum for resolution of commercial, banking and financial disputes and victims of tortious or unlawful conduct? 2. Is it reasonable for a non-domiciliary to be subjected to general jurisdiction of our courts where its affiliations within the State are so continuous and systematic as to render it at home in that State? 3. Was the dismissal of the Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over UBS justified where sworn statements by UBS in court filings attested to it being a New York corporation with offices in New York City and where for decades UBS has maintained a general presence on a regular and continuous basis within the United States, specifically in New York and California, and where UBS has consistently and voluntarily appeared in lawsuits as Plaintiff and Defendant, and admitted it was subject to in personam jurisdiction of the Courts in New York and California?