U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff has come out guns-a-blazing in an appellate brief filed on his behalf with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The brief, submitted Monday by court-appointed counsel John “Rusty” Wing of Lankler Siffert & Wohl in support of Rakoff’s position, accuses Citigroup Global Markets and the Securities and Exchange Commission of twisting the Manhattan judge’s words and mischaracterizing his decision to scuttle the SEC’s $285 million settlement with Citi for allegedly misleading investors in a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation.

You can read the hefty 90-page brief here; the court allowed the outsized filing given the voluminous briefs filed by the SEC, Citi, and various amici.

From the start, Wing asserts that—contrary to what the SEC and Citi have contended—Rakoff didn’t refuse to approve the settlement because Citi wouldn’t admit to any wrongdoing. Instead, he argues, Rakoff simply needed more information to determine if the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

Rakoff’s position will be tested at oral arguments in September. In the meantime, here are some highlights from the brief:

  • “The gravamen of the parties’ appeal—that the district court imposed a new bright-line rule of law that no consent judgment could be approved ‘unless liability has been conceded or proved’ and ‘conclusively determined’ [citing to Citi's brief]—is based on a flat mischaracterization and distortion of the district court’s ruling. Even a microscopic review of the district court’s opinion will not find any such statement.”
  •  ”Rather, the district court reiterated throughout its opinion that it was simply unable to fulfill its obligation in this particular case to independently determine whether the proposed consent judgment was fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public interest, when it had not been provided with any ‘evidentiary basis,’ any ‘factual base,’ ‘any proven or acknowledged facts,’ or any other factual showing whatsoever on which to make the requisite determination.”
  •  ”Citigroup claims that the district court had access to the SEC’s ‘substantial evidentiary record.’ This is patently untrue, as the SEC never offered, much less provided, access to its evidentiary record.”
  •  ”The SEC’s and Citigroup’s concept of deference—in which courts would be effectively reduced to potted plants—would surely undermine the independence of the federal judiciary.”

Wing also argued that the Second Circuit doesn’t have jurisdiction to review Rakoff’s November 2011 order, because it doesn’t meet the standards for an interlocutory review, and that Citi doesn’t have standing to appeal.

Citi’s brief, filed by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, is here. The SEC’s brief is here.