Is Judge Rakoff Asking for Too Much? the New Standard for Consent Judgment Settlements with the Sec

By Naoufal, Amanda S. | American University Business Law Review, January 1, 2012 | Go to article overview

Is Judge Rakoff Asking for Too Much? the New Standard for Consent Judgment Settlements with the Sec


Naoufal, Amanda S., American University Business Law Review


In SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Judge Rakoff rejected a $285 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") and Citigroup. The complaint alleged that Citigroup failed to disclose its role in the selection of assets for a billion dollar collaterized debt obligation. Judge Rakoff rejected the consent judgment, concluding it was neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public's interest. The critical issue in Judge Rakoff's decision was the validity of the SEC's "no admit/deny" policy, which is a policy that has long been accepted by courts. He objected to this policy because it required the court to employ its power without the parties providing him a factual basis, which constrained his ability to exercise his independent judgment. This decision has great implications for the SEC's enforcement program. The SEC relied on courts' longtime acceptance of a standard that produced an efficient and effective process with regards to consent judgments. This Comment analyzes the differences between the traditional standard and the Rakoff standard by illustrating the differences that each standard has on the outcome of consent judgments. Finally, this Comment recommends that a combination of both standards be used for future consent judgments to ensure greater enforcement, accountability, and transparency.

INTRODUCTION

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") is authorized to bring a civil injunction action as a form of enforcement against violators of securities laws.1 When the SEC brings a civil action in federal district court, it often requests an injunction against future violations of federal securities laws.2 A consent judgment, or consent decree, is a civil settlement incorporated within a judicial order3 and is used in more than ninety percent of the SEC's civil actions.4 Once a settlement is reached, the defendant consents to the entry of a judgment or order without admitting or denying the allegations.5 A judge then evaluates the proposed consent judgment with a limited source of information and, therefore, the entry of the consent judgment is often ministerial.6 Even though judicial inquiry is limited, the court is still required to exercise its independent judgment.7

The Supreme Court has long endorsed the use of consent judgments,8 and courts recognize consent judgments as an effective and efficient means of dispute resolution.9 The standard used to evaluate a consent judgment is whether the court finds the decree fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public interest.10 A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, however, used a different standard to evaluate consent judgments. The decision, if upheld, will likely have implications on the SEC's enforcement program.11

This critical decision was made on November 28, 2011, when Judge Jed Rakoffrejected a proposed $285 million settlement between the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. ("Citigroup").12 Contrary to the normal practice of a limited judicial role, Judge Rakoffexpanded the role in reviewing consent judgments.13 He also placed a greater burden on the SEC to present more facts to justify the terms of the decree.14 Consequently, in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Judge Rakoffopened the door to a new set of questions regarding consent judgments with federal agencies, causing fear that this decision will result in a stricter standard for consent judgment settlements.15

This Comment argues that ambiguity exists in the law regarding the standard used to evaluate consent judgments. The ambiguity is a result of some courts applying a lenient standard while others apply a more stringent standard, specifically that of Judge Rakoff's. This Comment analyzes the standard previously used to grant consent judgments ("traditional standard") and compares it to the stricter standard applied in Judge Rakoff's court ("Rakoffstandard").

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Is Judge Rakoff Asking for Too Much? the New Standard for Consent Judgment Settlements with the Sec
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.