The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Prevails in the Second Circuit in Defending Its No-Admission Settlement Policy

by Reed Smith
Contact

The long legal battle over the SEC’s neither-admit-nor-deny settlement policy has finally come to an end. On June 4, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating the district court’s rejection of a proposed consent decree the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (“Citigroup”) had submitted for court approval as part of a proposed settlement of an SEC enforcement proceeding. The case arises from an October 2011 complaint in which the SEC alleged that Citigroup violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws in its structuring and marketing of a 2007 collateralized debt obligation.

Shortly after the case was filed, the SEC and Citigroup submitted a proposed consent judgment in which Citigroup agreed to pay disgorgement and a large civil penalty, and submit to injunctive relief. Notably, the consent judgment did not contain any admission of liability, but instead required that Citigroup would neither admit the allegations in the complaint, nor deny them, unless required to do so in testimony or in unrelated litigation. This neither-admit-nor-deny settlement language, which grew out of a 1972 administrative rulemaking, has been a standard feature of settlements with the SEC for decades.

Enter Jed Rakoff.

When the Citigroup consent judgment was submitted for approval in the Southern District of New York, it was assigned to the docket of Judge Jed Rakoff. Judge Rakoff, who has become something of a cult hero for his strong positions in cases related to the financial crisis, challenged the SEC to demonstrate that the proposed judgment was fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. In particular, the court asked how it could enter an injunction where there had been no admission of wrongdoing or evidentiary record supporting the allegations in the complaint:

before a court may employ its injunctive and contempt powers in support of an administrative settlement, it is equired, even after giving substantial deference to the views of the administrative agency, to be satisfied that it is not being used as a tool to enforce an agreement that is unfair, unreasonable, inadequate, or in contravention of the public interest.

S.E.C. v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Judge Rakoff ultimately refused to approve the judgment, finding the court would not become “a mere handmaiden to a settlement privately negotiated on the basis of unknown facts.” Id.

The rejection of the proposed Citigroup judgment sent tremors through the SEC enforcement practice area, calling into question the Commission’s ability to execute settlements. Some other federal judges, following the lead of Judge Rakoff, also began to scrutinize the SEC’s no-admission settlement policy.

After the district court’s rejection of the consent judgment, both the SEC and Citigroup filed notices of appeal, and the SEC petitioned the Second Circuit for an emergency stay. The appellate court granted a stay, finding the SEC had demonstrated a “strong likelihood of success” on the merits. The Second Circuit also took the uncommon step of ordering that special pro bono counsel be appointed to advocate for the district court’s position since both parties in the underlying action supported the entry of the consent judgment.

In its decision, the Second Circuit found Judge Rakoff abused his discretion by requiring that there be a finding as to the “truth” of the underlying allegations in a complaint as a condition for approving a consent decree. “Trials are primarily about the truth. Consent decrees are primarily about pragmatism.” Opin. at 21. The court noted, “Consent decrees provide parties with a means to manage risk.” Id.

The Second Circuit clarified the standard for reviewing proposed consent judgments involving an enforcement agency. In such cases, a district court need only determine that the proposed decree is “fair and reasonable,” and that the “public interest would not be disserved” with its entry. Id. at 19. Most significantly, the Second Circuit held that, “[a]bsent a substantial basis in the record for concluding that the proposed consent decree does not meet these requirements, the district court is required to enter the order.” Id. (emphasis added)

In remanding the case for further proceedings, including a determination of whether the public interest would be disserved through entry of the consent judgment, the circuit court emphasized the deference that district court judges should afford to the policy decisions of federal agencies. “Federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.” Id. at 25 (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 866 (1984)). “The job of determining whether the proposed SEC consent decree best serves the public interest… rests squarely with the SEC.” Id. at 24

This long-awaited opinion should resolve much of the uncertainty that has surrounded court approval of SEC settlements since the decision of Judge Rakoff in Citigroup. But in the end, Judge Rakoff may have the last laugh, as recent comments from SEC Chair Mary Jo White and Senior Enforcement Staff suggest the Commission’s new enthusiasm for seeking admissions as a condition of settlement in a wide range of cases will continue to increase.

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.

© Reed Smith | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Reed Smith
Contact
more
less

Reed Smith 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):
hide

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.

Security

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 info@jdsupra.com. 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: info@jdsupra.com.

- 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.