Did the SEC properly exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign company?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) properly exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign company when its only purported service of process on the company was personal service on the company’s CEO while he was transiently attending a conference in New York City— a tactic referred to as corporate “tag” jurisdiction that has been rejected by at least two circuits and questioned by members of this Court? 2. By personally serving an individual the SEC knew was represented by counsel—contrary to longstanding and clear SEC rules—and without authorization for such service of process by the legally required SEC officials, do the SEC’s actions in this case conflict with decisions of this Court and other circuits?