Organization

Citigroup Global Markets

Securities arm of Citigroup; defendant in an SEC case over a 2007 fund.

3 links, 3 backed by primary records

Legal records

SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.

19 Oct 2011 Charged by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: negligence under Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act, over the Class V Funding III fund 1
4 Jun 2014 Decision overturned by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: the district court’s order refusing to approve the consent judgment was vacated and the case sent back 2

A charge is an accusation, not a finding of guilt.

Connections 3

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 19 Oct 2011 negligence under Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act, over the Class V Funding III fund Primary record 1

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 4 Jun 2014 the district court’s order refusing to approve the consent judgment was vacated and the case sent back Primary record 2

SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets defendant; consented to the judgment without admitting or denying the allegations Primary record 1

Timeline 2 dates

Proof 2 sources

SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Judge Rakoff), U.S. District Court, S.D. New York (text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project), 28 Nov 2011. Primary record
chose to charge Citigroup only with negligence, in violation of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act
On October 19, 2011, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “S.E.C.”) filed this lawsuit, accusing defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citigroup”) of a substantial securities fraud.
The Consent Judgment (I) “permanently restrained and enjoined” Citigroup
SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 752 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 2014), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project), 4 Jun 2014. Primary record
we vacate the November 28, 2011 order of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings
It is an abuse of discretion to require, as the district court did here, that the S.E.C. establish the “truth” of the allegations against a settling party as a condition for approving the consent decrees.

Page history 1 change