SEC v. Citigroup

Case Updates

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court was wrong to require the SEC to establish the “truth”of its allegations as a condition of approving the settlement. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

NCLC urged the Second Circuit Court to overturn a district court’s novel refusal to approve a consent order between the SEC and Citigroup because the company did not admit wrongdoing. In this case, a district court held that a proposed settlement agreement between a government agency and a regulated party could not be approved without “cold, hard, solid facts, established either by admission or by trials.” In its amicus brief, NCLC argued that such a sweeping proposition is fundamentally at odds with well-established law permitting regulated companies to settle without admitting to allegations of wrongdoing which they dispute. Although this case arises in the securities-enforcement context, the potential implications of the district court’s decision are far-reaching.

Lori Alvino McGill of Latham & Watkins LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the National Chamber Litigation Center in this case.

The Chamber filed this brief jointly with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).