United States Securities and Exchange Commisison v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-03905
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., Judge Woods declined to consider the proposed judgment because required court procedures were not followed.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., and their counsel; the proposed judgment was not considered at this stage.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., the plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment but did not follow Judge Woods’s rule requiring a joint letter immediately afterward.
The court said it needed a letter and supporting affidavits explaining why the proposed final judgment was legally and factually supported, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the public interest. The submission also had to address factors identified in an earlier appellate decision.
Judge Gregory H. Woods declined to consider the proposed judgment. He also directed the defendant’s lawyer to file a notice of appearance and directed the plaintiff’s lawyer to serve the order on the defendant and keep proof of service.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commisison v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A. · No. 1:23-cv-03905
- Gregory Woods
- May 11, 2023
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a proposed judgment at Docket Number 4. The court stated that the plaintiff had not followed Rule 1(F) of the court’s Individual Rules. That rule requires the parties to submit a joint letter immediately after filing a proposed order or stipulation.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it would not be expected to sign a proposed judgment without a party’s accompanying application and an explanation for the request. The court expected any required letter and supporting affidavits to provide the legal and factual basis for concluding that the proposed final judgment was fair and reasonable and would not harm the public interest. The submission also had to address the factors described in S.E.C. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 752 F.3d 285, 294–95 (2d Cir. 2014). Because the opinion concerns the current case, the earlier decision is identified without repeating any potentially relevant party caption.
Order
Judge Gregory H. Woods declined to consider the parties’ proposed judgment. The court additionally directed defense counsel to enter a notice of appearance. It directed counsel for the plaintiff to serve the order on the defendant and retain proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.