Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goel
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-06282
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SEC v. Goel, Judge Abrams required the SEC to explain a settlement’s speech restriction before considering a proposed consent judgment against Akshay Niranjan.
The SEC and Akshay Niranjan are directly affected: the SEC must explain the settlement’s speech restriction, and Niranjan’s counsel may respond before the court decides whether to enter the proposed consent judgment.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goel, the SEC asked the court to enter a proposed consent judgment against Akshay Niranjan. The judgment would implement a settlement resolving the SEC’s claim for equitable relief, while leaving monetary remedies for later determination.
The settlement included a provision barring Niranjan from publicly denying allegations in the complaint or suggesting that the complaint lacked a factual basis. The court directed the SEC to explain the provision’s purpose and necessity and why it was not an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Judge Ronnie Abrams gave the SEC until October 7, 2022, to file its explanation and allowed Niranjan’s counsel one week to respond. The order did not decide whether to enter the proposed consent judgment or whether the speech restriction violated the First Amendment.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goel · No. 1:22-cv-06282
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 22, 2022
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission moved for entry of a proposed consent judgment against Defendant Akshay Niranjan. The proposed judgment would put into effect the terms of a settlement between the SEC and Niranjan resolving the SEC’s claim for equitable relief. The court stated that monetary remedies would be determined at a later date.
The consent agreement included a provision stating that Niranjan would not take action, or make or allow to be made, any public statement denying—directly or indirectly—an allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint lacked a factual basis. The order referred to this as a “no-deny” provision and cited a separate appellate opinion describing an identical provision as a potentially effective prior restraint. A prior restraint is a government restriction on speech before the speech occurs.
Court’s Order
The court directed the SEC to file a letter by October 7, 2022, explaining: (1) the purpose and necessity of the no-deny provision; and (2) why the provision was not a prior restraint on speech that infringed Niranjan’s First Amendment rights. The court allowed Niranjan’s counsel to respond within one week after the SEC filed its letter.
The order did not grant or deny the SEC’s motion for entry of the proposed consent judgment. It also did not decide whether the no-deny provision violated the First Amendment, and it did not determine the monetary remedies.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.