Securities and Exchange Commission v. Xia, 1:21-cv-05350

The SEC brought a civil enforcement action against Richard Xia, Fleet New York Metropolitan Regional Center, LLC, and relief defendants for violations of federal securities laws related to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.
The SEC alleges Xia and Fleet fraudulently raised over $229 million from more than 450 Chinese nationals, misappropriating funds intended for investment.
In 2021, the court granted a temporary restraining order freezing assets and later expanded it to cover related relief defendants and properties following extensive factual findings and a show-cause hearing.
After more than two years of litigation and settlement negotiations, all parties reached a proposed settlement, including a consent judgment and appointment of a distribution administrator for investor restitution.
The SEC sought court approval for the settlement, entry of final judgment, and appointment of Robert Seiden as distribution administrator; no opposition was filed.
The court’s decision also addresses the fairness, clarity, and legality of the settlement under prevailing Second Circuit standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should the consent judgment be approved as fair, reasonable, and in the public interest?	The consent judgment is fair, addresses all claims, and serves the public and investor interests.	Did not oppose; settlement reached after arm’s length negotiation.	Consent judgment is approved as fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.
Does the judgment provide lawful remedies under federal securities laws (injunctions, disgorgement, penalties)?	Requested remedies authorized by statute and are a reasonable response to the alleged conduct.	Did not oppose/remedies agreed to in settlement.	Remedies are lawful and within court/SEC authority.
Are the terms of the consent judgment clear and enforceable?	The terms are specific regarding obligations, payments, and enforcement mechanisms.	No opposition; parties consented to clarity of terms.	Terms are clear and contain unambiguous enforcement mechanisms.
Is the appointment of a distribution administrator warranted?	Appointment is warranted to effectuate fair fund distributions and protect investor interests.	No opposition; accepted SEC’s recommendation.	Appointment of Robert Seiden as distribution administrator is appropriate.

SEC v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts., Inc., 752 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 2014) (articulates standard for approval of SEC consent decrees—fairness, reasonableness, public interest)
SEC v. Wang, 944 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1991) (reaffirming policy favoring approval of consent decrees in securities enforcement actions)
SEC v. Manor Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1082 (2d Cir. 1972) (court’s equity power to appoint receivers/distribution agents in SEC actions)