Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SEC. v. Steffen (SEC Response to Motion to Dismiss)

SEC. v. Steffen (SEC Response to Motion to Dismiss)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 123 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Published by: Mike Koehler on Nov 29, 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

12/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION,Plaintiff,v.URIEL SHAREF, et al.,Defendants.Case No. 11-Civ-9073 (SAS)
PLAINTIFF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’SMEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STEFFEN’SMOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Robert I. DodgeAssistant Chief Litigation CounselPaul W. KisslingerAssistant Chief Litigation CounselU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission100 F Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20549-4030(202) 551-4421 (Dodge)(202) 551-4427 (Kisslinger)(202) 772-9282 (facsimile)Attorneys for Plaintiff November 13, 2012
Case 1:11-cv-09073-SAS Document 28 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 55
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... iiPRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT ...................................................................................21. The DNI Contract Bribery Scheme................................................................................32. Steffen Coerces Regendantz into Making and Covering up $10 Million inBribe Payments ..............................................................................................................43. The ICSID Arbitration ...................................................................................................64. Steffen’s Contacts with the United States ......................................................................6STANDARD ON A MOTION TO DISMISS .................................................................................8ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................81. The Complaint Adequately Alleges that this Court has Personal Jurisdiction overDefendant Stefffen .........................................................................................................8A. Standard of Review for Determining Personal Jurisdiction...............................9B. Steffen is Subject to Personal Jurisdiction Because His Conduct CausedForeseeable Consequences in the United States ..............................................12C. The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over Steffen is Reasonable .................132. The Commission’s Claims Are Not Time Barred........................................................14A. Standard of Review for Statute of Limitations ................................................15B. The Statute of Limitations in Section 2462 Did not Run as to Steffen,Who was Not Found Within the United States ................................................15C. The Bribery Scheme Alleged in the Complaint Continued UntilFebruary 2007, Within the Five Year Limitations Period ...............................19D. The SEC’s Claims for Equitable Relief Are Not Subject to theLimitations Period of Section 2462 .................................................................23CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25
Case 1:11-cv-09073-SAS Document 28 Filed 11/13/12 Page 2 of 55
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 
FEDERAL CASES
 
 A.I. Trade Fin., Inc. v. Petra Bank 
, 989 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1993) ..........................................9
 Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc.
, 748 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Vt. 2010) ............................15
 Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court 
, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) .......................................12
 ATSI Comm., Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.
, 493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007) ....................................8
 Badaracco v. Comm’r IRS 
, 464 U.S. 386 (1984) ................................................................16
 Berko v. SEC,
316 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1963) .......................................................................24
 Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc.
, 519 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1975) .........................................10
 Bice v. Robb
, 324 Fed. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2009) .................................................................15
 Bild v. Konig
, No. 09-cv-5576 (ARR), 2011 WL 666259 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2011) ..........15
 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) ...............................................10, 12
Compudyne Corp. v. Shane
, 453 F. Supp. 2d 807 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ....................................8
 De La Fuente v. DCI Telecomm, Inc.,
206 F.R.D. 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ......................22, 23
 Derensis v. Coopers & Lybrand Chartered Accountants,
930 F.Supp. 1003(D.N.J. 1996) ................................................................................................................13
 District of Columbia v. Heller 
, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ..........................................................17
 E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis
, 264 U.S. 456 (1924) ...........................................16
 Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y.
, 375 F.3d168 (2d Cir. 2004) ..........................................................................................................8
 Hallwood Realty Partners L.P., v. Gotham Partners L.P.
, 104 F. Supp. 2d 279(S.D.N.Y. 2000) ...............................................................................................10, 12, 14
 Hanson v. Denckla
, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) ..........................................................................11
 Harris v. City of New York 
, 186 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1999) ...................................................15
Case 1:11-cv-09073-SAS Document 28 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 55

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)//-->