
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: July 3, 2014
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comIn a much-anticipated decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed the ruling of Judge Jed. S. Rakoff, who had refused to approve the agency’s consent decree with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (Citi).
The SEC entered into a consent decree with Citi in 2011 to resolve allegations that the company violated federal law in connection with certain mortgage-backed securities. While Citi agreed to pay a sizable financial penalty, the settlement did not include any admission of wrongdoing.
The SEC frequently settles cases on a “neither admit not deny” basis. However, Judge Rakoff refused to approve the consent decree, finding “it was bad policy, which disserved the public interest, for the SEC to allow Citigroup to settle on terms that did not establish its liability.”
The Second Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in its review of the consent decree and setting a trial date.
“It is an abuse of discretion to require, as the district court did here, that the SEC establish the ‘truth’ of the allegations against a settling party as a condition for approving the consent decrees. Trials are primarily about the truth. Consent decrees are primarily about pragmatism,” the Second Circuit held.
The appeals court further ruled that the district court failed to give the SEC the proper deference. “The job of determining whether the proposed SEC consent decree best serves the public interest … rests squarely with the SEC and its decision merits significant deference,” the court explained.
The Second Circuit remanded the case back to Judge Rakoff with instructions to reevaluate the consent decree under the standards articulated in its opinion.
The Second Circuit’s decision gives the green light to future SEC settlement agreements that do not contain admissions of liability, including the agency’s pending consent decree involving SAC Capital. However, as we have previously discussed on this Business Law Blog, the SEC has already made changes to its settlement policy. Earlier this year, Mary Jo White signaled that the agency would require admissions in some cases, such as those involving particularly egregious conduct or significant harm to the markets or investors.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!