A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has vacated a provocative order by Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff. In the November 2011 order, Rakoff rejected a proposed "no-admit, no-deny" consent decree to resolve an SEC enforcement action against Citigroup. See "Judges Refuse to Rubber Stamp SEC Settlements" and "SEC Enforcement Evolves," Expect Focus, Vol. I, Winter 2012. In vacating the order, the Second Circuit found it "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."
The Second Circuit explained: "Trials are primarily about truth. Consent decrees are primarily about pragmatism [and] provide parties with a means to manage risk." Thus, while the reviewing court must assess whether the proposed consent decree is fair and reasonable, and whether the public interest would be disserved by any requested injunctive relief, "[t]he job of determining whether the proposed [SEC] consent decree best serves the public interest...rests squarely with the [SEC]."
Moreover, the appellate court held that the district court could not second guess the nature of the charges the SEC brought (or failed to bring) against Citigroup. The Second Circuit also admonished, "Nor can the district court reject a consent decree on the ground that it fails to provide collateral estoppel assistance to private litigants – that simply is not the job of the courts."
Not surprisingly, the SEC has publicly hailed the Second Circuit’s ruling as a reaffirmation of "the significant deference accorded to the SEC in determining whether to settle with parties and on what terms." On remand, Judge Rakoff approved the Citigroup settlement, although he expressed concern that, under the Second Circuit’s decision, regulators’ settlements "will in practice be subject to no meaningful oversight whatsoever."
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
