Five Questions and Answers About the Second Circuit’s SEC v. Citigroup Decision

by Mintz Levin - Securities Matters

Last week we posted a summary of the Second Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.  This week, as a follow-up, we pose the following five “yes or no” questions and provide responses as a way to further dive into the decision and its potential impacts.

(1)  Does this decision affect the SEC’s previously announced initiative on requiring admissions in some settlements?

No.  The Second Circuit’s decision should have little impact on the SEC’s previously announced initiative to seek more admissions as part of settlements.  That initiative was not likely driven by the original district court decision; rather, it was likely motivated, at least in part, by criticisms that the agency has been too lenient in settling actions, especially those having to do with the financial crisis.  The district court’s decision was simply a manifestation of this broader perceived criticism that the SEC is still likely interested in addressing through its selective admissions initiative.

(2)  Did the Second Circuit incentivize the SEC to bring less-detailed settled complaints? 

Yes.  The Second Circuit made it clear that “absent a substantial basis in the record,” a district court is “required” to adopt a settlement.  This is especially true where the district court’s review of the settlement, per the Second Circuit, is limited to assessing whether a settlement is procedurally proper by examining its basic legality, clarity, provision of resolution of the claims, and whether it is the product of any improper corruption or collusion.  In one sense, therefore, by providing less information to a district court as part of a settlement, the SEC is limiting the district court’s ability to discern from the record a “substantial basis” for refusing to enter the settlement order.

(3)  Will the SEC bring less-detailed settlements?

No.  Despite the incentive to do so (discussed above) and the extremely limited judicial scrutiny of its settlements, the SEC will still likely continue to include the same level of detail in its settled complaints as it has done in the past.  This is because the SEC recognizes that the public allegations contained in its settled complaints often constitute the harshest consequence of any settlement, especially with regard to settlements with larger entities that would rather pay larger civil penalties than have more detailed allegations concerning their alleged conduct.  Moreover, despite the fact that the Second Circuit made it clear that the purpose of an SEC settlement is not to assist private litigants, several studies have shown that private securities class actions tend to settle for more money if there has been a prior SEC settlement (of course, these studies do not speak to the strength of any cause or effect).  So the SEC very likely sees this as a collateral benefit to having a more detailed complaint that could act as a roadmap for private litigants.

(4)  Did the Second Circuit provide any guidance as to what factors district courts should consider in assessing whether a settlement is in the “public interest”?

No.  This was one area where the Second Circuit provided little guidance to district courts other than stating that the SEC’s determination of what is in the public interest requires “significant deference.”  But the Second Circuit made it clear that district courts still need to consider this issue and “[f]or the courts to simply accept a proposed S.E.C. consent decree without any review would be a dereliction of the court’s duty to ensure the orders it enters are proper.”  The only small measure of guidance the Second Circuit decided to provide on this issue was that it critiqued the district court’s definition of public interest as “an overriding interest in knowing the truth.”  This criticism may have been prompted by a suggestion by one amicus brief that the district court did not go far enough and that the public interest required disclosure and examination of the investigatory materials the SEC gathered in the case.

(5)  Is there any opening for district courts to exercise any type of discretion?

Yes, in some subtle ways.  For example, the Second Circuit did not foreclose the ability of district courts to request additional information from the parties in order to assess a settlement, and stated that such requests may be necessary in some instances.  Then there is the curious matter of the very first footnote in the decision that suggested the familiar four-factor test a litigant must satisfy when seeking a permanent injunction must be satisfied.  The Second Circuit noted that “[t]he district court did not address, and the parties do not brief, whether the [four] factors were satisfied here.”  Reference to this four-factor test is curious for at least three reasons:

  • The four factor test (which focuses on irreparable injury to a party, inadequate remedies at law, balancing the hardships, and the public interest) is not easily applicable to an agency enforcement action;
  • Neither the parties nor the district courts generally consider these four factors in the context of an SEC settlement; and
  • This test implicitly calls for and is generally applied (in the ordinary course) after some form of fact-finding by the court — a practice that the Second Circuit seemingly prohibited district courts from doing in the context of an SEC settlement.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Mintz Levin - Securities Matters | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Mintz Levin - Securities Matters

Mintz Levin - Securities Matters on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.