Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
U.S. v. Herbert Steffen (Steffen Motion to Dismiss)

U.S. v. Herbert Steffen (Steffen Motion to Dismiss)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,016|Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Published by: Mike Koehler on Oct 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

03/23/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  ____________________________________ :U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE :COMMISSION, ::
 Plaintiff 
, :-v- : No. 11 Civ. 9073 (SAS):URIEL SHAREF,
et al.,
:
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
 :: ECF Case
 Defendants
. : ____________________________________: Electronically FiledMEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT HERBERT STEFFEN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO FILE WITHIN THE STATUTEOF LIMITATIONSSKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &FLOM LLPErich T. SchwartzAmanda R. Grier 1440 New York, Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20005(202) 371-7000
Counsel for Herbert Steffen
Case 1:11-cv-09073-SAS Document 24 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 17
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................ii
 
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
 
BACKGROUND AND FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT............................................1
 
ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................2
 
I.
 
THE COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER MR. STEFFEN.................2
 
A.
 
The SEC Failed To Plead Facts to Establish That Mr. Steffen HadSufficient Minimum Contacts With the Forum to Meet the ConstitutionalMinimums of Due Process.......................................................................................3
 
1.
 
 Mr. Steffen Lacks Minimum Contacts With the Forum.
...............................3
 
2.
 
 An Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over Mr. Steffen Would Be An Unfair and Unreasonable Exercise of Jurisdiction.
...............................6
 
B.
 
The New York Long Arm Statute Does Not Provide a Basis for Jurisdiction...............................................................................................................7
 
II.
 
THE SEC'S CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED BY A STATUTE OFLIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................8
 
A.
 
The SEC's Claims Were Filed Outside the Five-Year Statute of Limitations...............................................................................................................8
 
B.
 
The Statute of Limitations is Not Indefinitely Tolled Because a ForeignDefendant Resides Outside the United States and Does Not Own Propertyin the United States................................................................................................10
 
C.
 
A "Continuing Violations" Theory Has Not Been Accepted in the SecondCircuit And Is Not Applicable to Mr. Steffen........................................................11
 
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................12
 
Case 1:11-cv-09073-SAS Document 24 Filed 10/12/12 Page 2 of 17
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases Page(s)
 
 Adams v. Woods
,6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 336 (1805).............................................................................................11
 Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California
,480 U.S. 102 (1987).............................................................................................................6
 In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation
,543 F. Supp. 2d 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)...............................................................................11
 De la Fuente v. DCI Telecommunications, Inc.
,206 F.R.D. 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).......................................................................................12
 Fox v. Boucher 
,794 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................5
 Hanson v. Denckla
,357 U.S. 235 (1958).........................................................................................................3, 5
 Huang v. Sentinel Government Securities
,657 F. Supp. 485 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).......................................................................................5
 IMO Indus. v. Kiekert AG
,155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998)...............................................................................................11
 Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
,326 U.S. 310 (1945).........................................................................................................3, 6
 Johnson v. SEC 
,87 F.3d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1996).....................................................................................8, 9, 11
 Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.
,26 F. Supp. 2d 593 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)................................................................................2, 7
Case 1:11-cv-09073-SAS Document 24 Filed 10/12/12 Page 3 of 17

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Mike Koehler liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->