Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
To be argued by Brad S. Karp
11-5227-cv(L),
11-5375-cv (Con), 11-5242-cv (XAP)
 
United States Court of Appeals
 
 for the
 
Second Circuit
 
 ___________________________________ 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
 Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee,
 -v.-
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
 Defendant-AppelleeCross-Appellant 
. ___________________________________ 
On Appeal from the United States District Court  for the Southern District of New York 
BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT
Brad S. KarpTheodore V. Wells, Jr.Mark F. PomerantzWalter RiemanSusanna M. BuergelPAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6064(212) 373-3000
 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant 
 
Case: 11-5227 Document: 144 Page: 1 05/14/2012 609323 68
 
 
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant hereby certifies that Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is adirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Financial Products Inc., and is anindirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.,which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.
Case: 11-5227 Document: 144 Page: 2 05/14/2012 609323 68
 
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... v
 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................. 1
 
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................................... 4
 
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ..................................... 5
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 5
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 7
 
A.
 
The Parties Decide to Forgo a Trialand Resolve the Matter ConsensuallyThrough a Negotiated Settlement. ......................................................... 7
 
B.
 
The District Court Conducts a Hearingto Consider the Consent Judgment, After Receiving Information Regarding the Factualand Legal Bases for the Proposed Settlement. ...................................... 9
 
C.
 
The District Court Refuses to Approvethe Parties’ Proposed Consent Judgment. ........................................... 12
 
D.
 
This Court Stays Further DistrictCourt Proceedings, Finding a StrongLikelihood of Success on the Merits. .................................................. 13
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 15
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................... 17
 
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 18
 
I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN REFUSINGTO APPROVE THE CONSENT JUDGMENTWITHOUT PROVEN OR ACKNOWLEDGED FACTS ........................... 18
 
Case: 11-5227 Document: 144 Page: 3 05/14/2012 609323 68
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more