https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72291 Personal jurisdiction and extraterritorial reach were challenged in a US SEC fraud action arising from an Indian solar-energy bond offering. The defendants argued that the securities were sold outside the United States under Rule 144A and Regulation S, the issuer and alleged conduct were Indian, and the complaint failed to plead a domestic transaction, minimum contacts, or an actionable US nexus. They also denied credible evidence of bribery, asserted no investor losses, and contended that the relied-upon statements were non-actionable corporate puffery. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:31:03 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:31:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72291 Personal jurisdiction and extraterritorial reach were challenged in a US SEC fraud action arising from an Indian solar-energy bond offering. The defendants argued that the securities were sold outside the United States under Rule 144A and Regulation S, the issuer and alleged conduct were Indian, and the complaint failed to plead a domestic transaction, minimum contacts, or an actionable US nexus. They also denied credible evidence of bribery, asserted no investor losses, and contended that the relied-upon statements were non-actionable corporate puffery. News - Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:31:03 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72291