United States v. Coffman, 771 F. Supp. 2d 735

Defendants are charged in counts spanning mail, wire, and securities fraud related to an oil and gas investment scheme in Global Energy Group.
Indictment divides alleged fraud into Mid-America phase (2004–early 2008) and Global phase (mid-2007 to present).
Coffman moves to dismiss counts 1-10, 14-19, and 34 based on Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank (2010).
Alleged scheme involved Canadian sales offices and Canadian investors; Government contends conduct reached through U.S. mail and interstate wires.
Coffman concedes Global had a Lexington, Kentucky mail drop-box used in the scheme; some investments were sent to Kentucky/South Carolina addresses.
Court must determine whether Morrison precludes extraterritorial application of §10(b) and mail/wire fraud statutes to Global’s transactions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count 34 is precluded by Morrison	Morrison limits §10(b) to domestic transactions; government argues decision is premature for this record.	Morrison precludes extraterritorial §10(b) liability for foreign transactions conducted outside the U.S.	Premature to decide; proceed after government case-in-chief.
Whether Counts 1-10 and 14-19 survive under Morrison's extraterritoriality framework	U.S. mail and interstate wires used; statutes apply to instrumentalities, regardless of foreignity.	Global’s conduct was foreign; Morrison shields extraterritorial application of §1341/§1343.	Denied; use of U.S. mail and interstate wires supports viability of counts.

Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (Supreme Court, 2010) (extraterritoriality of §10(b) not clearly affirmed; focus on domestic securities transactions)
Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 2005) (upheld use of wire fraud statute for cross-border scheme; domestic element via interstate wires)
United States v. Wood, 364 F.3d 704 (6th Cir., 2004) (mail fraud relies on instrumentality; place of mailing drives liability)