On June 4, 2014, in a long-awaited but not unexpected opinion (here), the Second Circuit ruled that Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff had improperly rejected the $285 million settlement of the SEC’s enforcement action against Citigroup.
U.S. District Judge Rakoff ruled on whether copying legal filings amounts to copyright infringement. His verdict: it does not.
Investors who lost money in the housing crisis may prefer to have their case heard by a hometown jury in state court, instead of as a federal securities fraud claim.
By the time you read this blog post, you undoubtedly will have seen one of the stories in the mainstream media reporting on the February 25, 2013 decision of Southern District Court Jed Rakoff ordering former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta to repay most of the legal fees the company incurred in connection with the government’s investigation and prosecution of Gupta.
Judge Rakoff issued an opinion with significant implications for parties litigating cases involving mortgage backed securities.
Judge Rakoff Not Going Out Quietly
In a story we’ve been following since the outset, on Monday, Judge Rakoff filed his brief before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It is not every day that you see a federal judge litigating against two parties who were theoretically adverse before him. But that is precisely the framework of this appeal.
The SEC V. Citigroup Appeal: SEC and Citigroup File Their Briefs Explaining Why Judge Rakoff’s Opinion Should Be Vacated
On Monday, May 14, 2012, both the SEC and the Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. filed their appellate briefs (available here and here) in the three consolidated appeals regarding Judge Jed Rakoff’s November 28, 2011 Opinion and Order rejecting the SEC’s proposed settlement with Citigroup.
Judge Rakoff Issues Opinion in Civil Gupta Case Explaining Why He Will Not Compel the SEC to Produce Documents Relating to Settlement Negotiations
In a Memorandum Order entered on May 1, 2012, Judge Jed Rakoff formally denied a motion to compel by Rajat Gupta and Raj Rajaratnam, who were seeking an order that the SEC produce documents concerning settlement negotiations between the Commission and cooperating witnesses. In an April 11, 2012 telephone conference, Judge Rakoff tentatively ruled in the Commission’s favor, but allowed the parties to submit letter briefs on the issue.
In a sharply worded opinion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay to the district court proceedings in S.E.C. v. Citigroup, in the Southern District of New York. There, Judge Rakoff had previously refused to approve a proposed $285 million settlement in a case where, simultaneous with the filing of the complaint charging Citigroup with negligent misrepresentation under 15 USC ss. 77q(a)(2) and (3), the S.E.C. and Citigroup jointly presented a proposed consent judgment to the district court for approval.
Discovery Issues in the Parallel Rajat Gupta Cases – Judge Rakoff Directs SEC to Turn Over Witness Interview Materials from the Investigation to Prosecutors for Review Under Brady and Potential Disclosure to Defendant
On March 26, 2012, Judge Jed Rakoff issued an Opinion and Order in the two related cases against Rajat Gupta, granting in part a Motion to Compel and ordering the SEC to turn over to the U.S. Attorney’s Office materials relating to 44 witnesses (who were interviewed by the SEC and prosecutors jointly during the investigations of Mr. Gupta).