Securities and Exchange Commission v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-11214
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Judge Woods declined to consider a proposed order and required a supporting joint letter and defense counsel’s appearance.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, and their counsel were affected by the filing requirements and procedural directions.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, the court addressed the parties’ proposed order filed as Docket No. 7.
The court said the Securities and Exchange Commission had not followed the court’s Individual Rules, which require a joint letter immediately after filing a proposed order or stipulation.
Judge Woods declined to consider the proposed order, directed the parties to submit a letter addressing why the proposed final judgment would be fair, reasonable, and consistent with the public interest, and required defense counsel to enter an appearance. Plaintiff’s counsel also had to serve the order on the defendant and keep proof of service.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson · No. 1:19-cv-11214
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 13, 2019
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. The parties submitted a proposed order at Docket No. 7. The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations or claims.
Court’s Ruling
The court declined to consider the parties’ proposed order because the plaintiff had not followed the court’s Individual Rules, specifically Rule 1(F). That rule requires the parties to submit a joint letter immediately after filing a proposed order or stipulation.
The court stated that the joint letter should provide the legal and factual basis for concluding that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed final judgment is fair and reasonable and would not disserve the public interest. The letter also had to address the factors described in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 752 F.3d 285, 294–95 (2d Cir. 2014).
The court additionally directed the defendant’s counsel to enter a notice of appearance. It directed the plaintiff’s counsel to serve the order on the defendant and retain proof of service. The order did not rule on whether the proposed final judgment should ultimately be entered.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.