Securities and Exchange Commission v. Moraes
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-08343
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Moraes, Judge Abrams ordered the SEC to explain a proposed speech restriction before considering consent judgment.
The order directly affected the Securities and Exchange Commission and Fernando Motta Moraes. It required the SEC to explain a proposed restriction on Moraes’s public statements before the court addressed the proposed consent judgment.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Moraes, the Securities and Exchange Commission asked the court to enter a proposed consent judgment against Fernando Motta Moraes.
The proposed agreement would have barred Moraes from publicly denying allegations in the complaint or suggesting that the complaint lacked a factual basis. The order raised concerns that this provision might unlawfully restrict speech.
Judge Abrams directed the SEC to explain the provision’s purpose and necessity and why it did not violate Moraes’s First Amendment rights. The order also allowed Moraes’s lawyers to respond after the SEC filed its letter.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Moraes · No. 1:22-cv-08343
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 6, 2022
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission asked the court to enter a proposed consent judgment against Fernando Motta Moraes. A consent judgment is a court judgment based on the parties’ agreement rather than a decision after litigation on the underlying claims.
Speech provision
The proposed consent agreement stated that Moraes would not take action or make, or allow others to make, public statements denying allegations in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint lacked a factual basis. The court identified this as a “no-deny” provision and questioned whether it could be a prior restraint—a government-imposed restriction on speech before the speech occurs—that infringed Moraes’s First Amendment rights.
Court’s action
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not enter the proposed consent judgment in this order. Instead, the court directed the SEC to file a letter by October 18, 2022, explaining the provision’s purpose and necessity and why it was not an unconstitutional prior restraint. The order stated that Moraes’s counsel could respond within one week after the SEC filed its letter.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.