American Equity Investment Lif v. SEC, No. 09-1021 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 21, 2009.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals F O R T HE D ISTR IC T OF C O LU M B IA C IR C U IT ____________ No. 09-1021 September Term 2009 SEC-74FR3138 Filed On: July 12, 2010 American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., Petitioners v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Respondent -----------------------------Consolidated with 09-1056 BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Ginsburg and Rogers, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the petition of Old Mutual Financial Life Insurance Company for rehearing and the response thereto, and the supplemental briefs of the parties, it is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be granted to the extent that Rule 151A be vacated, and the opinion in American Equity v. SEC, 572 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 2009), be amended to delete the last sentence in the first paragraph, 572 F.3d at 925, and insert in lieu thereof Accordingly, we vacate the rule. and to delete the third full paragraph, 572 F.3d at 936, and insert in lieu thereof: Having determined that the SEC s ยง 2(b) analysis is lacking, we grant the petitions insofar as they assert the SEC failed properly to consider the effect of the rule upon efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Turning to the appropriate remedy, under Allied-Signal, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we note [t]he decision whether to vacate depends on the seriousness of the order s deficiencies (and thus the extent of doubt whether the agency chose correctly) and the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed. 988 F.2d 146, 151 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The SEC argues it is likely to reissue Rule 151A but it also acknowledges it is in the midst of analyzing the effect of the rule upon the law of each state. As the petitioners point out, the Commission cannot know whether that analysis will support reissuing Rule 151A until it has been completed. Neither will vacatur be disruptive of the agency s regulatory program. By its own terms, Rule 151A has not yet gone into effect, cf. Allied-Signal, 988 F.2d at 151 (vacatur would require agency to return fees already collected under regulatory regime); Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89, 97 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (vacatur would be an invitation to chaos because [t]he egg has been scrambled and there is no apparent way to restore the status quo ante ), and until such time as it does, the regulations supplied by state law will remain in place, cf. Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1454, 1458 59 (D.C. Cir.1997) (vacatur would leave certain pollutants partially unregulated for eighteen months). We therefore order that Rule 151A be vacated. The Clerk is directed to amend the judgment filed July 21, 2009, accordingly. The Clerk is further directed to issue the mandate 7 days after the issuance of this order. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
