In 1972, the Securities and Alternate Fee announced its “policy not to permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings. In this regard, the Commission believes that a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations”. In 2003, Barry Romeril settled with the SEC and was thereby unable to talk brazenly about this coverage. Now he’s asking the U.S. Supreme Court docket to take away the muzzle. Romeril v. Securities and Alternate Fee, S. Ct. No. 21-1284.
Not too long ago Mr. Romeril gained assist from a number of different adversaries of the SEC – Mark Cuban, Phillip Goldstein, Elon Musk, Nelson Obus. Along with the Investor Alternative Advocates Community (ICAN),they’ve filed an amicus brief making the next factors:
The SEC’s Gag Orders Conceal Data from the Market
The SEC’s “Hobson’s Choice” Settlements Are No Substitute for Market Transparency
The SEC Calls for Transparency Relating to Settlements Between Personal Events
The SEC Is Not Infallible and Ought to Welcome Publicity of Its Unproven Allegations to Scrutiny
To this listing, I might add this query that I posited a number of years in the past: Why Does The SEC Insist That Some Defendants Lie?
Joyful Kodomo no Hello (子供の日)!