Appellate Court Casts Doubt on Acceptability of ‘Obey-the Law’ Injunctions

Appellate Court Casts Doubt on Acceptability of ‘Obey-the Law’ Injunctions

June 25, 2012

Appellate Court Casts Doubt on Acceptability of ‘Obey-the Law’ Injunctions

By: Jeff Ifrah

We recently blogged about the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goble, 2012 WL 1918819 (11th Cir. May 29, 2012).  There, we discussed the appeals court’s limitation on the reach of the concept of “securities fraud” under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b(5).

Another aspect of that case is also quite noteworthy and may have an impact on many corners of white-collar criminal law. In the Goble case, the court vacated an injunction that simply tracked the language of the securities laws in defining what the defendant was barred from doing. This kind of injunction is often termed an “obey-the-law” injunction.

The court wrote: “Goble correctly identifies these paragraphs as an “obey-the-law” injunction and is rightly skeptical of their validity. As the name implies, an obey-the-law injunction does little more than order the defendant to obey the law. We have repeatedly questioned the enforceability of obey-the-law injunctions not only in the context of securities cases but other cases as well.”

The appeals court pointed out that any federal court injunction must comply with the requirements of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

“Glaringly absent from the SEC’s brief is any discussion explaining why the district court’s injunction complied with the requirements of Rule 65. Rule 65(d)(1) states that ‘Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must: (A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail — and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1). We have never said that a court may simply ignore these requirements because it is entering an injunction in a securities case.”

The key issue that the appeals court pointed out is that an injunction requires a certain amount of specificity, so that the defendant is fully on notice about what he can or cannot do under the order.

“Plainly,” the court wrote, “Goble would need to look beyond the four corners of the district court’s injunction in order to comply with its strictures. The mere cross-reference to provisions of the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations does not specifically describe the acts addressed by the injunction. And, without a compendious knowledge of the codes, Goble has no way of understanding his obligations under the injunction.”

This decision may open up new lines of argument for defendants in white-collar cases, and not only in securities actions. Since broad injunctions that do little more than track a statutory prohibition can be subject to challenge, defense attorneys may be able to argue convincingly that an injunction should be more specific and more narrowly tailored to a defendant’s past conduct.

*

To contact Ifrah Law’s leading securities fraud attorneys, visit IfrawLaw.Com or call (202) 524-4140.   

Jeff Ifrah

Jeff Ifrah

Considered one of the world’s foremost attorneys in online gaming and gambling law, Jeff Ifrah is regarded as a trusted advisor to online gaming businesses looking to successfully start, operate and grow. His legal knowledge and record of success have also earned him international recognition as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer and litigator. He is an advocate keenly focused on delivering results for his clients – on understanding the problems they face and developing innovative strategies to resolve them.

Related Practice(s)
Other Posts
Convicted of Fraud but Changed Their Lives; Appeals Court Takes Note
White-Collar Crimes |
Nov 29, 2011

Convicted of Fraud but Changed Their Lives; Appeals Court Takes Note

By: Ifrah Law
In Appeal of Construction Fraud Case, DOJ Seeks Tougher Sentences
White-Collar Crimes |
Nov 17, 2011

In Appeal of Construction Fraud Case, DOJ Seeks Tougher Sentences

By: Ifrah Law
Spurned Juror Loses in Court, But His Efforts Lead to New D.C. Court Rule
White-Collar Crimes |
Oct 26, 2011

Spurned Juror Loses in Court, But His Efforts Lead to New D.C. Court Rule

By: Ifrah Law
Ninth Circuit Upholds Dramatic Upward Departure in Fraud Case
White-Collar Crimes |
Oct 24, 2011

Ninth Circuit Upholds Dramatic Upward Departure in Fraud Case

By: Ifrah Law

Subscribe to Ifrah Law’s Insights