United States District Court,
S.D. New York (location of litigation).
SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
Elek STRAUB, et al., Defendants.

No. 11 Civ. 9645(RJS) (case number).
Aug. 5, 2013(date of court’s opinion).

I. BACKGROUND
The SEC alleges that Elek Straub and others, who are all Hungarian citizens believed to be residing in Hungary, engaged in two related schemes involving the bribery of public officials in Macedonia and Montenegro. Thereafter, Straub allegedly covered up these schemes by making false entries in Magyar's records. Since Magyar's securities were publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange and thus registered with the SEC, Defendants, as executives of Magyar, were required to make certifications to the company's auditors regarding the accuracy of the company's financial statements and the adequacy of its internal controls. The Complaint alleges that Defendants falsified these certifications in order to cover up the bribery schemes.

The SEC filed the Complaint in this action on December 29, 2011, bringing claims for: (1) bribery under the FCPA, (2) aiding and abetting bribery under the FCPA, (3) aiding and abetting Magyar's violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which require issuers to maintain accurate books and records and a sufficient system of internal accounting controls, (4) falsifying books and records in violation of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13b2–l, and (5) making false or misleading statements to an auditor or accountant in violation of Exchange Act Rule 13b2–2. (Doc. No. 1.)

On November 5, 2012, Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that: (1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants . . . . The Court disagrees.

. . . .
B. Personal Jurisdiction
[Defendants insist that there exist substantial differences of opinion on the exercise of personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants for violating the FCPA.  The SEC alleges that all Defendants made misleading management representations to auditors, and Defendant Straub is alleged to have signed a false SEC filing. By contrast, in Sharef [where personal jurisdiction was not found], “[t]he SEC [did] not allege that [the defendant] directed, ordered or even had awareness of the cover ups that occurred at [the company] much less that he had any involvement in the falsification of SEC filings in furtherance of those cover ups. Nor is it alleged that in Sharef that the defendant’s position as Group President of [the company] would have made him aware of, let alone involved in falsification of these filings.” Id. Thus, the situation presented in Share f, where the defendant had taken no action with any connection to the United States, is unlike this case . . . . 
[P]ersonal jurisdiction is proper where the defendant took intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions . . . expressly aimed at the forum state” . . . .