Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

Is the Court simply acting to "approve a settlement" without regard to the wording of the judgment and the law cited therein?

No.

I ask again:
Is the Court simply acting to approve a settlement without regard to the wording of the judgment and the law cited therein?

Still no.

If you really want to get a sense of a judge's thought process in addressing whether to approve an SEC settlement, then please read some published decisions on the topic. I quoted some language from a recent decision, which I will quote again:

The standard for judicial review and approval of proposed consent judgments in [Securities and Exchange] Commission enforcement actions is well-established. Because actions brought by the Commission seek to enforce the federal securities laws, they should serve "the public interest." SEC v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir.1984), see also United States v. Trucking Emp., Inc., 561 F.2d 313, 317 (D.C.Cir.1977) ("prior to approving a consent decree a court must satisfy itself of the settlement's overall fairness to beneficiaries and consistency with the public interest") (citations and internal quotations omitted). To ensure that the public interest is served, the court "need not inquire into the precise legal rights of the parties nor reach and resolve the merits of the claims or controversy, but need only determine that the settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable and appropriate under the particular facts and that there has been a valid consent by the parties." Citizens for a Better Env't v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 1117, 1126 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citations omitted).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=771+f.+supp.+2d+304&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=16662531211797483061&scilh=0

I should note that the above language is from the SEC's brief, which the court agreed with. This is not some decision that is particularly favorable to a defendant's point of view. As stated above, the judge does not resolve the merits of the SEC's claims when approving a settlement. The question for the judge is whether the terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable in light of the record before it. In other words, the issue before the judge is whether the settlement terms are equitable considering both the SEC's allegations and the company's response thereto. The judge is not reaching the merits of the claim, and thus is not making a ruling on whether the cited laws have been violated.

So, no, the judge is not merely a "potted plant capable of signing its name," and I would never suggest otherwise, particularly with Judge Wolf (who I highly respect). The issue before the court is simply different than what you have stated.

Again, don't take my word for it. There are plenty of published decisions and treatises that provide guidance on this topic.

I do not wish to belabor this issue any further.