Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/123273764/SEC-v-Jackson-Ruehlen-Amended-Complaint
Timestamp: 2015-08-29 19:29:20
Document Index: 478586286

Matched Legal Cases: ['§78', '§78', '§240', '§78', '§240', '§78', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 1391']

SEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen Amended Complaint
P. 1SEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen Amended ComplaintSEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen Amended ComplaintRatings: (0)|Views: 160|Likes: 1Published by Mike KoehlerAmended ComplaintAmended ComplaintMore info:Categories:Types, Business/LawPublished by: Mike Koehler on Feb 01, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/123273764/SEC-v-Jackson-Ruehlen-Amended-Complaint02/26/2013pdftextoriginal UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE )COMMISSION, ))Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00563)v. ))
MARK A. JACKSON )and JAMES J. RUEHLEN, ))Defendant. ))Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), alleges:
This action arises from violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the“FCPA”) by Mark A. Jackson (“Jackson”) and James J. Ruehlen (“Ruehlen”) (collectively“Defendants”), who are a former and a current employee of Noble Corporation (“Noble”), aninternational provider of offshore drilling services and equipment to oil companies throughoutthe world, including Nigeria.2.
Noble and its wholly owned subsidiary, Noble Drilling (Nigeria) Ltd. (“Noble- Nigeria”), authorized its customs agent to pay bribes on Noble’s and Noble-Nigeria’s behalf to Nigerian government officials to influence or induce them to (1) favorably process false paperwork, (2) grant temporary import permits (“TIPs”) based on the false paperwork, and (3)favorably exercise or abuse their discretion in granting extensions to these illicit TIPs.Defendants approved payment of the bribes. Defendant Ruehlen also assisted the customs agentin preparing false documents, processed the customs agent’s invoices for the bribes, and signed
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 95 Filed in TXSD on 01/25/13 Page 1 of 58
2the checks reimbursing the customs agent for the bribes he paid to Nigerian governmentofficials. Defendants acted in this way to obtain TIPs and TIP extensions and retain businessunder drilling contracts in Nigeria. As a consequence, Defendants violated the anti-bribery provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §78dd-1].3.
Defendants also took steps to circumvent Noble’s internal controls and to falselyrecord these bribes as legitimate operating expenses on Noble’s books. Defendant Jackson failedto implement internal accounting controls to prevent the bribery and false recording of the bribes. As a consequence, Defendants violated the records falsification and internal control provisions of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78m(b)(5) and 17 C.F.R. §240.13b2-1], and aidedand abetted Noble’s violation of the books and records and internal control provisions of theExchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§78m(b)(2)(A) and (B)].4.
Defendant Jackson misled Noble’s auditors about the bribes and signedcertifications required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 falsely stating that he had created andmaintained effective internal controls, and that there were no internal control weaknesses, fraud,or FCPA violations. As a consequence, Jackson violated Rules 13b2-2 and 13a-14 of theExchange Act [17 C.F.R. §§240.13b2-2 and 240.13a-14].5.
During the violations, Jackson was Noble’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”),Chief Operating Officer (“COO”), and ultimately President, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”),and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Jackson directly or indirectly controlled Noble andDefendant Ruehlen, and therefore is liable as a control person under Section 20(a) of theExchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78t(a)] for all of their violations.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 95 Filed in TXSD on 01/25/13 Page 2 of 58
This Court has jurisdiction under Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the ExchangeAct [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa]. Noble, Jackson, and Ruehlen, directly or indirectly,made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including electronic mail, of the mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange in connection with the transactions,acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint.7.
Venue is appropriate in this Court under Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15U.S.C. § 78aa] or 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) because, among other reasons, certain acts or transactionsconstituting the violations by Defendants occurred in this district.
DEFENDANTS AND OTHER ENTITIES
Jackson was Noble’s CFO from September 2000 to about October 2005, andActing CFO from about March 2006 to about November 2006. Jackson became COO in March2005, became the President and COO in February 2006, became a Director in July 2006, and became CEO in late October 2006. When Jackson resigned in September 2007, he wasPresident, CEO, and Chairman of the Board.9.
As CFO and Acting CFO, Jackson was responsible for Noble’s compliance withthe FCPA. He received regular reports of payments made to government officials, and hereviewed and approved such payments, including those for TIPs and TIP extensions. As CFOand Acting CFO, Jackson supervised Noble’s internal audit, finance, and accounting functions.The head of internal audit reported directly to Jackson, and Jackson received both drafts and finalversions of audit reports. Jackson was responsible for the accuracy of Noble’s books, includingthe accurate recording of payments to government officials.
Case 4:12-cv-00563 Document 95 Filed in TXSD on 01/25/13 Page 3 of 58
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readsMike Koehler liked thisMike Koehler liked thisLoad more
Similar to SEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen Amended ComplaintJackson Reuhlen RulingcorruptioncurrentsDOJ's Motion to Dismiss Africa Sting CasesMike KoehlerOkada Notice of RemovalMike KoehlerU.S. v. Siriwan (DOJ Response)Mike KoehlerSEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen (Joint Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint)Mike KoehlerSEC v. Straub (Decision on Motion to Dismiss)Mike KoehlerFCPA Enforcement in 2010 - Big, Bold, and BizarreMike KoehlerThe Story of George McLeanMike KoehlerU.S. v. Stuart Carson el al. (Declaration of Professor Michael Koehler)Mike KoehlerSEC v. Steffen (Steffen Reply Brief)Mike Koehler
RecommendedJackson Reuhlen RulingcorruptioncurrentsDOJ's Motion to Dismiss Africa Sting CasesMike KoehlerOkada Notice of RemovalMike KoehlerU.S. v. Siriwan (DOJ Response)Mike KoehlerU.S. v. SiriwanSEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen (Joint Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint)Mike KoehlerSEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen (Joint Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint)SEC v. Straub (Decision on Motion to Dismiss)Mike KoehlerSEC v. Straub (Decision on Motion to Dismiss)FCPA Enforcement in 2010 - Big, Bold, and BizarreMike KoehlerThe Story of George McLeanMike KoehlerThe Story of George McLeanU.S. v. Stuart Carson el al. (Declaration of Professor Michael Koehler)Mike KoehlerSEC v. Steffen (Steffen Reply Brief)Mike KoehlerPrevious|NextPage 1 of 3