NCLA Slams SEC’s Defense of Gag Rule that has Hoodwinked Americans for Half a Century
SEC v. Allaire; Barry D. Romeril (Appellant) v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Appellee)
Washington, DC (July 31, 2020) – For nearly 50 years, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has imposed a Gag Rule that silences people with a lifetime gag enforced through a threat of a reopened prosecution. NCLA client Barry D. Romeril, the former Chief Financial Officer of Xerox, is challenging the constitutionality of such a gag imposed on him by the SEC in a 2003 settlement and consent order.
Today the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, fired back with a reply briefin Barry D. Romeril v. SEC, countering the agency’s faulty arguments in support of the Gag Rule. Mr. Romeril’s appeal seeks reversal of the district court’s decision to reject his motion for relief from judgment so that he may tell his side of the story publicly. Gag orders interfere with the general public’s right to receive full information about cases, and they prevent Mr. Romeril from exercising his right to free speech and petition.
NCLA’s brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit details several different ways in which SEC gag orders like this one violate the First Amendment. It also points to the binding circuit precedent in Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., which held that a party subject to an unconstitutional, judicially imposed “prior restraint” on future speech may vacate the gag, even decades later. NCLA argues that the district court erred in its opinion that 14 years is too long to wait to challenge an unconstitutional order. Circuit precedent dictates that motions under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be made “at any time” if the underlying order is void, as it is here.
“When SEC brings charges against Americans, it issues an inflammatory press release that too often immediately destroys lives, livelihoods, personal relationships, businesses and reputations. When defendants settle with this powerful agency—as 98% do—SEC demands they never speak publicly about the unproven claims against them. It is far past time for this unconstitutional and unlawful practice to stop. The gag shields the agency from criticism and entrenches a dangerous culture of overcharging Americans who are unable to defend themselves or bring agency abuses to the attention of the public and lawmakers.”
— Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA
“SEC is unwilling to accept what is painfully obvious, it cannot restrain truthful speech in perpetuity. SEC presents its demand for silence or devastating litigation as a choice. But, weighed down by the inequities in bargaining power between the SEC and its enforcement targets, such a choice is a false one. It is time for the Court to correct this unconstitutional practice.”
— Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel, NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.
False CRD Disclosures can ruin your practice, if not your career. Call Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC today at 212-509-6544 to learn if your complaints and termination disclosures can be permanently removed from your CRD report, and BrokerCheck. We have been helping brokers across the country to remove false reports for years. Call now before FINRA changes the rules again.
Every broker is aware of the defamatory nature of many BrokerCheckdisclosures. It is no wonder, since any customer can file a complaint against his broker, for any reason, or no reason, and regardless of the merits of the complaint, FINRA publishes the complaint to the entire world on BrokerCheck.
Brokers can remove some of those complaints, in particular the ones that are not pursued, or which have no merit.
While FINRA is making it increasingly difficult to remove meritless complaints, it does have a procedure to do so, in FINRA Rule 2080.
Brokers need to review their CRD and BrokerCheck reports, because their customers and prospective customers are doing so. Potential customers do not care that the complaint is groundless, or that you won the arbitration, they are not going to look past the complaint and simply contact another broker.
While FINRA has gotten better at rooting out fraudulent U5 filings by firms, the problem persists, and simply adding your own comment does not address the problem.
Firms are not hiring brokers with any yes answer on their CRD, and even if you get hired, a second termination from your new firm, years down the road, will cause a significant, and possibly career ending problem.
You don’t need to take that chance, get the termination language addressed now, before it becomes a problem.
For more information see Expungement of Customer Complaints at SECLaw.com
Call Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC today at 212-509-6544 to learn if your complaints and termination disclosures can be permanently removed from your CRD report, and BrokerCheck. We have been helping brokers across the country to remove false reports for years. Call now before FINRA changes the rules again.