UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 97512 / May 16, 2023

ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT

Release No. 4409 / May 16, 2023

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-20603

In the Matter of 

RAMÓN LAFARGA BÁTIZ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO USE ALTERNATE MEANS OF 

SERVICE

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order instituting proceedings 

(“OIP”) on September 27, 2021, pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 102(e)(3),

1

against 

Ramón Lafarga Bátiz (“Respondent”).2 According to the OIP, Respondent was permanently 

enjoined from violating antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

3

 The OIP further 

temporarily suspended Respondent from appearing or practicing before the Commission.4

On January 18, 2023, the Division of Enforcement (“Division”) filed a motion for leave 

to serve the OIP on Respondent by alternative means. According to the motion, the Division 

attempted to serve Respondent—who is a citizen and resident of Mexico—by sending “sets of 

Hague Service Convention documents to Mexico’s Central Authority” on November 22, 2021, 

and April 27, 2022. Because the Division had not yet received confirmation of a service attempt 

by the Mexico Central Authority, the Division sought leave to serve Respondent (a) by e-mail at 

an e-mail address known to be used by Respondent or (b) by publication. On March 1, 2023, the 

Commission issued an order requesting additional briefing regarding whether service of the OIP 

on Respondent using e-mail would constitute a “means not prohibited by international 

 

1

17 C.F.R. § 201.102(e)(3).

2 Ramón Lafarga Bátiz, Exchange Act Release No. 93137, 2021 WL 4452772 (Sept. 27, 

2021).

3

Id. at *1; see also SEC v. Gerardo de Nicolás, et al., Civil Action No. 17-CV-02086 

(S.D. Cal.).

4 Bátiz, 2021 WL 4452772, at *2.
2

agreement” under the circumstances of this case.

5

 Respondent did not file a response to the 

Division’s supplemental brief. Based on the additional briefing submitted by the Division, we 

find it appropriate to grant the Division’s motion to the extent it seeks leave to serve Respondent 

by e-mail.

Commission Rule of Practice 141(a)(2)(iv)(D) provides that service of an OIP on persons 

in a foreign country may be accomplished “[b]y any other means not prohibited by international 

agreement, as the Commission or hearing officer orders.”6 Although Mexico has lodged an 

objection to Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention, and thus objects to service “by postal 

channels,”

7

service by e-mail is not expressly prohibited by the Convention.8 Thus, “according

to a majority of courts,” service by e-mail is not a method of service prohibited by international 

agreement even where the foreign country has objected to service by mail under Article 10.9 We 

find the analysis in these cases persuasive and applicable here.10 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Division’s motion is granted in part. The 

Division is hereby directed to serve Respondent by e-mail and file a status report concerning 

service of the OIP by June 13, 2023, and every 28 days thereafter until service by e-mail is 

accomplished. The remainder of the Division’s motion concerning its request to serve 

Respondent by publication is denied, without prejudice, as moot.

11

 

5 Ramón Lafarga Bátiz, Exchange Act Release No. 97007, 2023 WL 2313275 (Mar. 1, 

2023).

6

17 C.F.R. § 201.141(a)(2)(iv)(D).

7

See Hague Convention Conference on Private International Law, Mexico Declarations, 

https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/statustable/notifications/?csid=412&disp=resdn (last visited May 8, 2023); U.S. Dep’t of State: Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, Mexico Judicial Assistance Information, 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/Judicial-Assistance-CountryInformation/Mexico.html (last visited May 8, 2023).

8

See Bazarian Int’l Fin. Assocs., LLC v. Desarrollos Aerohotelco, C.A., 168 F. Supp. 3d 1, 

17 (D.D.C. 2016) (stating that “a country’s objection to Article 10 does not constitute an express 

rejection of service by email”).

9 Chanel, Inc. v. Handbagstore, Case No. 20-cv-62121, 2021 WL 3060329, at *8–9 (S.D. 

Fla. June 30, 2021) (collecting cases); Bazarian Int’l Fin., 168 F. Supp. 3d at 17 (same); see, 

e.g., Vaswani, Inc. v. Manjunathamurthy, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-20288-KSH-CLW, 2021 WL 

1541071, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2021) (“What is clear is that those courts holding objections to 

Article 10 do not prohibit service by email represent the majority view.”).

10 Precedent construing the service requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, although not binding on the Commission when construing our Rules of Practice, can 

be persuasive authority. See Bátiz, 2023 WL 2313275, at *1 n.9.

11 Cf. id. at *1 n.6 (deferring consideration of the Division’s request to serve Respondent by 

publication).
3

The parties’ attention is directed to the e-filing requirements in the Rules of Practice.12

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

 

12 Amendments to the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Exchange Act Release No. 90442, 

2020 WL 7013370 (Nov. 17, 2020), 85 Fed. Reg. 86,464, 86,474 (Dec. 30, 2020), 

https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2020/34-90442a.pdf; Instructions for Electronic Filing and 

Service of Documents in SEC Administrative Proceedings and Technical Specifications, 

https://www.sec.gov/efapdocs/instructions.pdf. The amendments impose other obligations such 

as a redaction and omission of sensitive personal information requirement. Amendments to the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice, 85 Fed. Reg. at 86,465–81.