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. ) ____________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TODEFENDANTS JACKSON’S AND RUEHLEN’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 37 Filed in TXSD on 06/22/12 Page 1 of 59
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iiiPRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................5 NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDING .................................................................................7ISSUES PRESENTED.....................................................................................................................8STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................8ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................10A. THE COMPLAINT STATES A CLAIM UNDER THE FCPA’SANTI-BRIBERY PROVISIONS ...........................................................................101. The Complaint Adequately Alleges the Involvement of “Any Foreign Official” ..............................................................................12a. The Allegations in the Complaint Regarding the “ForeignOfficials” Satisfy Rule 8(a)’s Notice Pleading Standard ...............12 b. Defendants’ Proposed Re-Definition of “Any ForeignOfficial” to Require Specific Identity Finds No Basis inLaw or Legislative History ............................................................142. The Complaint Alleges The Acts The Foreign Officials WereBribed to Undertake ...................................................................................193. The Complaint Sufficiently Pleads That The Payments WereProscribed Bribes and Not Permissible Facilitating Payments ..................22a. The SEC Need Not Plead to Negate the NarrowException for “Routine Governmental Action” .............................22 b. The Payments Alleged in the Commission’s ComplaintDo Not In Any Event Fall Into the Narrow Exception for Facilitating Payments .....................................................................24c. The Routine Governmental Action Exception Is NotUnconstitutional .............................................................................27
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 37 Filed in TXSD on 06/22/12 Page 2 of 59
ii4. The Complaint Sufficiently Pleads That Jackson and ReuhlenActed Corruptly .........................................................................................29a. “Corruptly” Does Not Require Specific Intent ToViolate A Particular Law ...............................................................30 b. The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Defendants’Corrupt Intent .................................................................................32B. THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLEADS DEFENDANT’SVIOLATIONS OF SECTION 13(B)(5) AND RULE 13B2-1 ..............................35C. THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLEADS DEFENDANTS’AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 30A,13(B)(2)(A) AND 13(B)(2)(B) ..............................................................................39D. THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLEADS JACKSON’S LIES TOAUDITORS, FALSE CERTIFICATIONS, AND LIABILITY AS ACONTROL PERSON ............................................................................................40E. THE COMMISSION’S COMPLAINT IS TIMELY .............................................431. The Complaint Alleges Misconduct Within The Statute of Limitations .................................................................................................432. The Continuing Violation Doctrine Tolled the Statute of Limitations .................................................................................................453. The Fraudulent Concealment Doctrine Tolled the Statute of Limitations .................................................................................................464. The Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply to EquitableRemedies ....................................................................................................47CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................49
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 37 Filed in TXSD on 06/22/12 Page 3 of 59
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
SEC v. Jackson and Ruehlen (Opposition Brief to Motion to Dismiss)
1.1K
Reads
1
Readcasts
10
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
