jump to navigation

transparency and the public interest: the sec, citigroup, and judge rakoff November 28, 2011

Posted by Bradley in : lies , trackback

Refusing to approve the SEC’s and Citigroup’s settlement of proceedings Judge Rakoff affirms the court’s right to determine whether a n injunction is in the public interest and rejects the idea that the SEC is the sole determiner of the public interest in the context of consent judgments. He goes further:

when a public agency asks a court to become its partner in enforcement by imposing wide-ranging injunctive remedies on a defendant, enforced by the formidable judicial power of contempt, the court, and the public, need some knowledge of what the underlying facts are: for otherwise, the court becomes a mere handmaiden to a settlement privately negotiated on the basis of unknown facts, while the public is deprived of ever knowing the truth in a matter of obvious public importance….Finally, in any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth. In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers. Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found. But the S.E.C., of all agencies, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges; and if fails to do so, this Court must not, in the name of deference or convenience, grant judicial enforcement to the agency’s contrivances.


no comments yet - be the first?