The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that Novalpina Capital Partners I GP S.A.R.L. (Novalpina GP) is subject to the jurisdiction of Oregon courts. This decision comes as part of an ongoing investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) into potential violations of the Oregon False Claims Act. The ruling, issued on September 23, 2026, affects Novalpina GP's ability to contest a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by the DOJ.
The case, identified by docket number A187428, centers around Novalpina GP's relationship with the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (OPERF). The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the extent of personal jurisdiction in cases involving foreign entities and the enforcement of state laws.
Novalpina GP is a Luxembourg-based investment firm that previously acted as the general partner for a fund known as Novalpina Capital Partners I SCSp (the Fund). The dispute arose after OPERF made a substantial investment in the Fund, which led to a complex legal entanglement involving multiple parties and jurisdictions. The Oregon DOJ initiated an investigation into whether Novalpina GP had submitted false claims related to this investment.
The case reached the Oregon Court of Appeals after Novalpina GP appealed a lower court's decision that denied its request to set aside the CID issued by the DOJ. The CID sought documents and testimony as part of the investigation into potential violations of the Oregon False Claims Act, which prohibits making false claims for payment to public agencies.
In its appeal, Novalpina GP raised three main arguments. First, it claimed that the trial court erred in asserting personal jurisdiction over it, arguing that it lacked sufficient contacts with Oregon. Second, it contended that the forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses in its agreements with OPERF should prevent enforcement of the CID in Oregon. Lastly, it argued that the DOJ's actions violated the Hague Evidence Convention, which governs international evidence gathering.
The court ruled that the trial court did not err in asserting personal jurisdiction over Novalpina GP. The opinion, written by Presiding Judge Ortega, stated, "We conclude that the trial court did not err when it determined that Novalpina GP was subject to personal jurisdiction in Oregon, because it purposefully availed itself of the Oregon market." The court found that Novalpina GP had actively solicited investment from OPERF, thereby establishing sufficient contacts with the state.
Regarding the forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses, the court determined that these provisions did not preclude the enforcement of the CID. The ruling emphasized that the DOJ's authority to investigate potential violations of state law exists independently of the parties' contractual agreements. The court also dismissed Novalpina GP's argument concerning the Hague Evidence Convention, stating that adherence to this international law is not mandatory in this context.
The ruling has important implications for Novalpina GP and similar entities. It establishes that foreign companies can be held accountable in Oregon courts if they engage in business activities within the state. This case reinforces the principle that companies cannot evade jurisdiction simply by asserting complex corporate structures or relying on international agreements.
Moving forward, Novalpina GP's options appear limited. The court's ruling affirms the trial court's decision, leaving Novalpina GP to comply with the CID issued by the DOJ. There is no indication in the court's opinion that Novalpina GP plans to appeal this decision further. However, the ongoing investigation by the DOJ may lead to additional legal challenges as the case unfolds.
This ruling highlights the complexities of jurisdiction in cases involving foreign entities and underscores the importance of compliance with state laws. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, businesses operating across borders must remain vigilant in understanding their obligations under various jurisdictions.