United States: SEC's 'Obey-the-Law' Injunction: Is It Ever Possible To Vacate?

Last Updated: January 12 2017
Article by Ernest E. Badway and Catherine A. Savio

Originally published by the New York Law Journal

'Obey-the-law" injunctions, favored by regulators such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), are incredibly powerful devices that create an albatross hanging over the head of any defendant subjected to them. The purpose of this article is to examine the ability to vacate "obey-the-law" injunctions when they are no longer equitable. In short, a court in its discretion may vacate a permanent injunction if it is no longer equitable due to changes in decisional law, factual circumstances, or the passage of time.

Problematic History

"Obey-the-law" injunctions have been the primary enforcement tool utilized by the SEC since the agencies' creation. The language of an "obey-the-law" injunction, typically, tracks the SEC's governing statutes and regulations; once entered by a federal district court, a defendant is permanently enjoined (along with any agent or person acting in concert, directly or indirectly, with one or more of the defendant's agents) from violating federal securities laws. These injunctions prohibit acts or omissions—identified or unidentified—found to be contrary to any stated provision of the federal securities laws. "Obey-the-law" injunctions impose a limitless, permanent, prohibition on future conduct that may violate a federal securities statute or regulation, regardless of time, place, manner, or relation to the violations initially charged.

Not surprisingly, this type of injunction has been the subject of legitimate criticism from both courts and the public. Significantly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has doubted the propriety of "obey-the-law" injunctions when there is only a single incident of misconduct. (See, e.g.,SEC v. Militano , 101 F.3d 685 (2d Cir. 1996)). Several courts have questioned the SEC's use of "obey-the-law" injunctions because they contravene the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 65(d), while other courts have held that their use violates certain constitutional rights and the separation of judicial and executive powers.

FRCP 65(d) requires injunctions to state with specificity, among other things, the reasons for issuance, specific terms, and reasonably detailed descriptions—without referring to the complaint or other document—of the act or acts sought to be restrained or required. The specificity requirement prevents any uncertainty or confusion for court when called upon to enforce them if necessary, and the defendant to avoid potential contempt.1 FRCP 65(d) has, thus, made courts reluctant to enforce "obey-the-law" injunctions since these general injunctions may leave both the subject and enforcing courts unclear regarding their dictates.2

"Obey-the-law" injunctions and their enforcement also raise significant constitutional concerns, particularly when the SEC files a motion for contempt based upon a violation of an "obey-the-law" injunction, rather than prosecuting another case. (Smyth, 420 F.3d at 1279). In fact, one court found that—although prosecuting contempt proceedings may make the SEC's life easier—such proceedings may flout a defendant's constitutional Fifth and Seventh Amendment rights. ( Sky Way Global , 710 F. Supp. 2d at 1279-1280; see also Bazerman v. Feaver , 293 Fed.Appx. 635, 639 n. 11 (11th Cir. 2008)). "Obey-the-law" injunctions and subsequent contempt proceedings allow the SEC to use its significant power to avoid the well-developed and constitutionally required judicial processes currently in place.

"Obey-the-law" injunctions also raise concerns involving the principle of separation of powers. When Congress created the authority to issue an injunction, it created appropriate rules, requirements, and sanctions relating to a potential violation of federal securities laws. ( Sky Way Global , 710 F. Supp. 2d at 1282; see also Chandler v. James , 180 F.3d 1254, 1271 (11th Cir. 1999)). "Obey-the-law" injunctions, essentially, circumvent statutory authority, and replace it with a mechanical focus on if the new conduct violated the previous injunction. (Id.) Thus, to hold a defendant in violation of the federal securities laws, only requires a contempt hearing. (Id.) Accordingly, the statutory authority of, including, among other things, civil monetary penalties, and criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, is ignored in favor of the SEC's use of contempt proceedings. (Id.; see also Chandler, 180 F.3d at 1272 & n. 14).

Difficulty in Overturning

FRCP 60(b)(5)-(6) provides that a court may, in its discretion, vacate a permanent injunction if: "the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief." By utilizing this procedure, "obey-the-law" injunctions may be vacated if they are no longer equitable for a variety of reasons. ( Agostini v. Feltoni , 521 U.S. 203, 215 (1997); Railway Employers v. Wright , 364 U.S. 642 (1961)). However, to obtain the extraordinary judicial relief of FRCP 60(b), the movant must present "exceptional circumstances," requiring relief to avoid "extreme and undue hardship."3

Courts have found that the nature of "obey-the-law" injunctions creates a situation where the extreme and undue hardship required by FRCP 60(b) will never exist because said injunctions merely require a party to follow the law. Similarly, the passage of time without further violations may not weigh upon the analysis since, again, the law (and the injunction) expects compliance. (See Bausch & Lomb, 82 F.R.D. at 53; Samuel H. Sloan & Co., 1991 WL 173730).

When an "obey-the-law" injunction arises out of a consent decree, the nature of a consent decree is often considered to be a factor weighing against its vacatur. (See e.g., Sampson v. Radio Corp. of Am., 434 F.2d 315, 317 (2d Cir. 1970)). The Supreme Court has explicitly held that consent decrees are to be construed "basically as a contract," rather than a judgment made after a trial, adding to the heavy burden of a FRCP 60 movant. ( United States v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co. , 420 U.S. 223, 238 (1975)).

For example, in U.S. v. Bank of New York , 14 F.3d 756, 758 (2d Cir. 1994), the defendant pled guilty to a drug crime and subsequently settled a civil forfeiture action relating to it. Subsequent to the settlement, his conviction was overturned since his conduct was found not to be prohibited by the statute. (Id.). When the defendant moved to vacate his civil forfeiture, however, the Second Circuit refused to vacate a voluntary, consent agreement, despite the fact that the underlying criminal conviction had no basis in law. (Id. at 760).

An Approach for Change

In analyzing a motion to modify a judgment under FRCP 60(b), courts exercise discretion in an equitable manner by weighing "the severity of the alleged danger which the injunction was designed to eliminate against the continuing necessity for the injunction and the hardship brought by its prospective application." ( SEC v. Warren , 76 F.R.D. 405, 408 (W.D. Pa. 1977)). "Where there is little necessity for continuing an injunction, hardships such as the stigma associated with an injunctive order, the damage an order can do to business relationships, and the psychological burden imposed by the injunction warrant that injunctive order be vacated." (Warren, 583 F.2d at 122; SEC v. Wong , 369 F. Supp. 646 (D.P.R. 1974)). The disclosure of an injunction "acts as a screen and a flag ... . In fact, one witness characterized the effect as the same as taking the Fifth Amendment. They (the investing public) automatically think there is something wrong." (Warren, supra at 411; See also Wong, supra at 647).

Courts consider multiple equitable factors to determine if an injunction should be vacated, including: the passage of time; the history of violations prior to the permanent injunction; changes in factual circumstances; changes in career; and low danger of recidivism. (Warren, 583 F.2d at 122 n.11; SEC v. Thermodynamics , 464 F.2d 457 (10th Cir. 1972)). If these factors demonstrate that the injunction is no longer equitable in light of the significant hardships stemming from its continued existence, the injunction should be vacated.

Understandably, certain factors are more important to the analysis than others. For example, the Supreme Court held that, where an injunction was created by consent, a court may still be forced to vacate or modify it if legal or factual circumstances change. ( Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail ,502 U.S. 367, 380, 384 (1992); Railway Employees v. Wright , 364 U.S. 642, 647 (1961)). Even a voluntary judgment cannot be permitted to stand, if it rests upon a legal principal no longer sustainable. (Agostini, 521 U.S. at 238). Thus, continued enforcement of a permanent injunction is not necessary solely to refrain a defendant from violating a law that no longer exists, or if they require nothing more than compliance with already existing law.4 Further, certain Second Circuit precedent even suggests that the passage of time may be enough to vacate an "obey-the-law" injunction, however, one district court refused to vacate an "obey-the-law" injunction based upon good behavior and the passage of time alone.5

Finally, FRCP 60(b)(6) "permits reopening when the movant shows 'any ... reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment' other than the more specific circumstances set out in Rule 60(b)(1)-(5)." ( Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 528-29 (2005); Alexander, 2013 WL 5774152 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)). The power of a court of equity to modify injunctions is broad, flexible, and long-established, and the Second Circuit has consistently recognized the necessity for liberal modification of final judgments. ( New York State Ass'n of Retarded Children v. Carey , 706 F.2d 956, 967-70 (2d Cir. 1983); Chance v. Board of Examiners , 561 F.2d 1079, 1086 (2d Cir. 1977)). If a court is convinced that the purposes of the injunction have been achieved or are no longer necessary, then it should exercise its power to vacate the decree.6

Conclusion

In sum, an "obey-the-law" injunction may be challenged in the future on both procedural and constitutional grounds, and, potentially, be vacated if its application is no longer equitable and the circumstances justify said relief.

Footnotes:

1. Id.; See Hughey v. JMS Dev. , 78 F.3d 1523, 1532 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1996); see also Burton v. City of Belle Glade , 178 F.3d 1175, 1201 (11th Cir.1999); Am. Red Cross v. Palm Beach Blood Bank , 143 F.3d 1407, 1411-12 (11th Cir. 1998); Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 73-74, 88 S.Ct. 201, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967).

2. See Daniels v. Woodbury County, Iowa , 742 F.2d 1128, 1134 (8th Cir. 1984); Epstein Family P'ship v. Kmart , 13 F.3d 762, 771 (3d Cir. 1994); see also City of Belle Glade , 178 F.3d at 1200-01; Smyth, 420 F.3d at 1233 n. 14.

3. Nemaizer v. Baker , 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986); Mendell v. Gollust , 909 F.2d 724, 731-32 (2d Cir. 1990); Matarese v. Le Fevre , 801 F.2d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 1987); Samuel H. Sloan & Co., 1991 WL 173730.

4. See Warren, 583 F.2d at 121; Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity , 797 F. Supp. 1180, 1184SEC v. Warren , 583 F.2d 115 (3d Cir. 1978).

5. CFTC v. Kelly , 736 F. Supp. 2d 801, 803 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); S.E.C. v. Alexander, 2013 WL 5774152 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013); But c.f., SEC v. Bausch & Lomb , 82 F.R.D. 50, 53 (S.D.N.Y. 1979): SEC v. Samuel H. Sloan & Co., 1991 WL 173730 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

6. See United States v. United Shoe Machinery , 391 U.S. 244, 248 (1968); see also Rufo , 502 U.S. 367; Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991).

Reprinted with permission from the January 6 issue of The New York Law Journal. (c) 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Ernest E. Badway
Catherine A. Savio
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions