![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
The SEC and Judge Rakoff are squaring off in
what can only be viewed as a very high stakes game of poker. At the center of
the battle is the question of whether Judge Rakoff acted within his discretion
in refusing to enter the settlement the Commission negotiated with Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., to resolve a key market crisis case. SEC v. Citigroup
Global markets Inc., Case No. 11 Civ 7387 (S.D.N.Y.).
The next round in this drama will play out before a
motion panel in the Second Circuit and perhaps before the Appeals Court on the
merits. Presently, a hearing is set before a motion panel on January 17, 2012.
Whether the appeals court will actually consider the merits of the appeal is an
open question. After refusing to enter the settlement Judge Rakoff set the
SEC's case for trial with the companion action against Brian Stoker. The SEC
however requested a stay of that order. .
The district court's order denying the SEC's request for
a stay provides insight into the key issues in this battle. Following the
rejection of the settlement, the SEC chose on December 15, 2011 to appeal the
decision rather than consider other options as it had in the past. This
approach is consistent with the briefs the Commission filed before Judge Rakoff
requesting that the settlement be entered. Despite an order from the Court
requesting in part a factual basis for the settlement and an explanation for
the facial mismatch between the allegations of intentional wrong doing and the
negligence based charges and settlement, the Commission chose, in essence, not
to respond. Rather, the agency argued that it was entitled to deference and the
settlement should be entered. Stated differently, the Commission told the Court
to enter the settlement without explanation - period.
In an unsurprising ruling, Judge Rakoff denied the SEC's
request for a stay of his order, following the filing of the appeal. In its
order denying the stay, the Court began by noting that the "actual Notices of
Appeal filed by the SEC and Citigroup . .. do not recite any statutory basis
for the appeals." Although the Commission claimed that the notice of appeal
divested the district court of jurisdiction, it offered little authority for
this claim other than a statement that the decision should be reviewable as an
interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), according to the order.
Judge Rakoff, however, concluded that the cited Section
does not offer any basis for the SEC's claim. That Section provides for an
interlocutory appeal from a consent judgment when the requested "injunctive
relief is so central to the rejected settlement that the appellant will suffer
immediate and irreparable harm from the denial, not of the settlement
generally, but of the injunctive relief specifically." This is not the case
here, according to the order. Indeed, the SEC apparently admitted this by
claiming that the central legal error on appeal is the question of whether the
agency had to provide the Court with "proven or acknowledged facts in order to
evaluate whether the proposed Consent Judgment, in any of its aspects, is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. SEC Mem. at 11." Viewed in
this context, it becomes clear, according to the order, that the denial of
injunctive relief is not the key question and the SEC's appeal must fail.
Furthermore, the Court concluded that any possible harm
to the SEC is "illusory." The order setting the case for trial simply requires
the SEC to conduct trial preparation. Since it is doing that in the companion
case which is essentially the same, there is little if any harm requiring a
stay. While Judge Rakoff allowed that Citigroup may have some claim here, the
question could not be resolved, according to the order, without evaluating the
insurance coverage available for the claim.
Not to be outdone, the SEC apparently has threatened to
file a writ of Mandamus if its appeal is not successful. While this is not a
question to be resolved by the district court, Judge Rakoff noted that the
"standards for mandamus are even more onerous than those under § 1291(a)(1)."
Accordingly, Judge Rakoff concluded that "it seems patently clear that the
parties have no basis for an appeal . .. "
If the motion panel later this month focuses solely on
jurisdictional issues and the stay it is possible that the merits of the appeal
may not be considered in this round. If Judge Rakoff is correct and his ruling
cannot be appealed now or no stay is warranted, the central question the SEC
seeks to appeal may never be heard by the appeals court. In that event the
Commission will have to decide what to do with its settlement - offer the Court
the requested proof or wait and see if it can produce the proof to a jury. If
Judge Rakoff is incorrect the Second Circuit may reach the issues later this
year. If it sustains the Commission's position presumably its settlement will
be entered. If not the ruling could severely damage the Enforcement program.
Clearly the SEC needs to win every issue at ever stage to secure the relief it
seeks. No doubt the stakes are very high here for the SEC. In the end, win or
lose, it seems dubious at best that the viability of the enforcement program
should hinge on a high stakes wager that could have been resolved in other
For more cutting edge commentary on
developing securities issues, visit SEC Actions, a
blog by Thomas Gorman.
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.