It happens very rarely. Two judges in the same federal district court simultaneously have SEC cases before them involving alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In both cases, a defendant moves to dismiss on the face of the complaint, arguing, among other things, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. In both cases, the defendant never set foot in the United States. One judge rules for the SEC. The other rules for the defendant. Although the second decision makes an effort to distinguish the first, the two opinions leave the reader at a loss to articulate a guiding principle that should apply to the jurisdictional question raised in both cases. Here is how this came to pass.

Personal Jurisdiction Prongs

On Dec. 29, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an action in the Southern District of New York, SEC v. Elek Straub. The complaint alleged that executives of a Hungarian telecommunications company named Magyar Telekom, Plc. engaged in a scheme to bribe public officials from both political parties in Macedonia’s coalition government. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing, among other things, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. In a recent decision, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied the defendants’ motion. SEC v. Straub, 2013 WL 466600 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2013).