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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SEC v. James Ruehlen (Motion to Dismiss)

SEC v. James Ruehlen (Motion to Dismiss)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 178 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Mike Koehler on May 09, 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

11/08/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION
Securities and Exchange Commission,Plaintiff,v.Mark A. Jackson et al.,Defendants.Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00563
DEFENDANT JAMES J. RUEHLEN’S MOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
 
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/08/12 Page 1 of 35
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
 
A.
 
 Nature and Stage of the Proceeding ....................................................................... 1
 
B.
 
Issues To Be Ruled upon by the Court .................................................................. 1
 
II.
 
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1
 
A.
 
Facts ....................................................................................................................... 1
 
B.
 
The SEC’s Complaint
............................................................................................ 2
 
III.
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 3
 
IV.
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................... 5
 
V.
 
ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7
 
A.
 
Claims 1 and 2 Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Fails To Allegethe Identity of the Involved Foreign Officials in Any Manner andFails To Distinguish Between Facilitation Payments and Bribes. ......................... 7
 
1.
 
The identity of the foreign official to whom bribes wereallegedly made or authorized is an essential element of anFCPA violation. ......................................................................................... 7
 
2.
 
All known contested FCPA bribery enforcement actionsresulting in liability clearly and specifically identified theforeign officials. ......................................................................................... 9
 
3.
 
The Complaint fails to identify the foreign officials to whom payments were allegedly authorized. ....................................................... 11
 
B.
 
Claims 1 and 2 Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Fails To Allegethat Mr. Ruehlen Acted Corruptly. ...................................................................... 13
 
1.
 
The Complaint fails to allege corrupt intent because it does not plead facts showing the requirements of Nigerian law andfacts showing that Mr. Ruehlen sought to influence Nigerian
officials to violate their official duties on Noble’s behalf.
...................... 13
 
2.
 
Th
e SEC’s allegations that Mr.
Ruehlen sought and followed
the advice of Noble’s senior management negate any inference
that he acted corruptly. ............................................................................. 15
 
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/08/12 Page 2 of 35
 
 iiC.
 
Claims 1 and 2
Must Be Dismissed Because the FCPA’s Facilitation
Payment Exception Is Unconstitutionally Vague as Applied toMr. Ruehlen. ........................................................................................................ 17
 
D.
 
Claims 3 and 4 Must Be Dismissed Because the SEC Fails ToIdentify the False Book, Record, or Account, or the CircumventedControl, and Because Any Alleged Violations Are Derivative of theUnderlying Bribery Allegations. .......................................................................... 21
 
E.
 
Plaintiff’s Claims and Supporting Allegations Must Be Dismissed
Because They Rely on Untimely Allegations that Fall Outside theStatute of Limitations. .......................................................................................... 23
 
VI.
 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25
 
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/08/12 Page 3 of 35

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)//-->