UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION
)SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE )COMMISSION, ))Plaintiff, ) Case No. 4:12-cv-00563)v. ))MARK A. JACKSON and )JAMES J. RUEHLEN, ))Defendants. ))
DEFENDANT MARK A. JACKSON’S MOTION TO DISMISSTHE COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATEA CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 35 Filed in TXSD on 05/08/12 Page 1 of 31
TABLE OF CONTENTSSTATEMENT OF NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDING............................................1STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE RULED ON.......................................................................1SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT..........................................................................................1ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................2I.BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................2II.LEGAL STANDARDS.....................................................................................................5
A. The Complaint Must State a Plausible Claim to Relief..........................................5B. Conclusory Statements or Legal Conclusions Must Be Disregarded.....................6
III.THE CLAIM I BRIBERY ALLEGATION MUST BE DISMISSED..........................9
A. The Elements of an FCPA Anti-Bribery Violation.................................................9B. The Complaint Fails to Sufficiently Plead Involvement of a ForeignOfficial Taking Sought-After Unlawful Actions..................................................10C. The Allegations are Consistent with Jackson Having a Good Faith Belief that the Payments were Permissible “Facilitating Payments”..............................131.
The SEC Must Plausibly Plead Corrupt Intent
.........................................142.
The Only Well-Pleaded Facts Show Jackson’s Good Faith Belief inthe Legality of the Payments
.....................................................................15D. The Bribery Claim is Barred by the Statute of Limitations..................................191.
The Complaint Does Not Allege that Jackson Approved Bribes During the Limitations Period
...............................................................................192.
The Pleadings Fail to Raise Any Basis for Tolling
...................................20
IV.THE DERIVATIVE CLAIMS (CLAIMS II-VII) MUST ALSO BEDISMISSED.....................................................................................................................22
A. Claim II – Aiding and Abetting Noble’s Anti-Bribery Violation.........................22B. Claims III & IV – Aiding and Abetting Noble’s FCPA Books and RecordsViolation, and Directly Violating Internal Controls and Books andRecords Requirements..........................................................................................23C. Claims V and VI – Misleading Auditors and Signing False Certifications..........24D. Claim VII – Control Person Liability...................................................................25
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................25
i
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 35 Filed in TXSD on 05/08/12 Page 2 of 31
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)..........................................................................passim
Bass v. Stryker Corp.
, 669 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2012)........................................................5, 6, 9, 13
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)..................................................................passim
Chavers v. Morrow
, No. 08-3286, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89432 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30,2010).......................................................................................................................................11
Doe v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist.
, No. 09-60406, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6080 (5th Cir.Mar. 23, 2012) (en banc).......................................................................................................1, 5
FCC v. Am. Broad. Co.
, 347 U.S. 284 (1954)..............................................................................12
Gentilello v. Rege
, 627 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2010)..................................................................6, 8, 13
Gonzalez v. Kay
, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009)..............................................................................6
Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc.
, 634 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2011)...............................14
In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig.
, No. 10-2185, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17788 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 13,2012).......................................................................................................................................25
Johnson v. SEC
, 87 F.3d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1996).............................................................................19
Jones v. ALCOA, Inc.
, 339 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2003)....................................................................19
Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc.
, 407 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2005)...................................................................6
R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips
, 401 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. 2005).................................................................2
Rothman v. Gregor
, 220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000).............................................................................4
SEC v. Apuzzo
, 758 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Conn. 2010).................................................................23
SEC v. Brown
, 740 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.D.C. 2010)...............................................................20, 21
SEC v. Jones
, 476 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)....................................................................21
SEC v. Microtune, Inc.
, 783 F. Supp. 2d 867 (N.D. Tex. 2011),
appeal docketed
, No. 11-10594 (5th Cir. June 21, 2011)...................................................................................20, 21, 22
SEC v. Treadway
, 430 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).............................................................23
Shandong Yinguang Chem. Indus. Joint Stock Co. v. Potter
, 607 F.3d 1029 (5th Cir.2010).......................................................................................................................................17
Solis v. Bruister
, No. 10-77, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30739 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 8, 2012)..............20
Trawinski v. United Techs.
, 313 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2002).......................................................19
United States v. Blondek
, 741 F. Supp. 116 (N.D. Tex. 1990).....................................................10
United States v. Bodmer
, 342 F. Supp. 2d 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)..................................................11
United States v. Castle
, 925 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1991)..................................................................10
ii
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 35 Filed in TXSD on 05/08/12 Page 3 of 31
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
