United States v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth. (347 F. Supp. 3d 182, 2018)

WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, Senior United States District Judge:

The United States of America (the "Government") moves for approval of a proposed consent decree touted by the parties to bring organizational reform to the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA") and correct its systemic violations of federal health and safety regulations. On September 26, 2018, scores of NYCHA tenants, elected officials, and representatives of community organizations appeared for a fairness hearing to assist this Court in assessing the proposed decree. One after another, they rendered harrowing accounts of the squalid conditions in their apartments and the indifference of NYCHA management, called for the firing or prosecution of NYCHA officials, and urged greater tenant participation in the negotiation and enforcement of the proposed consent decree. Two of these community organizations, the City-Wide Council of Presidents and At-Risk Community Services (the "Intervenors"), also filed formal opposition briefs.

This human dimension cannot be ignored despite the parties' attempts to limit the Court to a perfunctory review of the validity and form of the settlement. For decades, Congress has addressed the importance of ensuring that public housing residents live in decent, safe, and sanitary conditions. Congress vested the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") with broad authority and responsibility to monitor the performance of public housing agencies receiving federal funds and to aggressively reform those agencies that misuse them. But the parties' proposed decree sidelines HUD and displaces the congressional framework for remedying public housing failures with a parallel framework to be managed by the judiciary. And aside from general directives to comply with applicable statutes and regulations, the proposed decree does not offer any specificity as to NYCHA's required or enjoined conduct. Rather, it contemplates the future elaboration of the terms of the injunction through the development of performance requirements and plans. These performance requirements and plans are not subject to this Court's approval, but will be developed by a monitor, approved by the Government, and subject to judicial review only under an arbitrary and capricious standard.

Because the record reveals a substantial basis to conclude that this proposed decree is not fair, reasonable, or consistent with the public interest, the Government's motion to approve the consent decree is denied.

BACKGROUND

This case is about the disastrous human toll resulting from a complete bureaucratic breakdown of the largest public housing agency in the United States. NYCHA's stated mission is to provide safe, decent, and affordable housing for the 400,000 or more low-and moderate-income New Yorkers who live in approximately 175,000 apartments in 326 housing developments. NYCHA's reported population alone places it within the fifty most populous cities in the Nation. But NYCHA's size is paralleled by its organizational disarray in providing any semblance of adequate housing for some of the most vulnerable members of society and its systemic cover-up of a host of fundamental health and safety issues. More than two years ago, the Government began investigating NYCHA's violations of federal health and safety requirements and its deception of federal regulators as to its compliance with those requirements. The breathtaking scope of NYCHA's deficiencies came into public focus through the accretion of media scrutiny, the high-profile departures of some of NYCHA's top leadership, and federal and state court class actions by NYCHA's own tenants to remedy some of the same housing conditions at issue in this action.

On June 11, 2018, the Government's investigation culminated in the filing of a complaint and proposed settlement (the "Complaint" and "Proposed Consent Decree"). The Complaint, which seeks the appointment of a monitor and other injunctive relief, asserts three claims against NYCHA. First, the Government claims that NYCHA substantially defaulted on its covenants and obligations under its "Annual Contributions Contract" with HUD, which incorporates federal lead-paint safety regulations and NYCHA's obligation under 24 C.F.R. § 5.703 to provide "decent, safe, and sanitary housing." (Compl., ECF No. 11, ¶¶ 268-271 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j)(3) ).) Second, it asserts a claim under the federal Anti-Fraud Injunction Act to enjoin NYCHA's ongoing or imminent false statements to federal regulators about its housing conditions and its compliance with federal law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. (Compl. ¶¶ 272-276 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1345 ).) Finally, the Government brings a claim under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to restrain NYCHA's failure to comply with federal lead-based paint regulations. (Compl. ¶¶ 277-282.)

Because the determination of whether the Proposed Consent Decree should be approved requires an examination of the terms of the settlement and the claims brought in this action, a brief overview is warranted.

I. The Complaint

This action may present the rare instance in which the allegations in the complaint are understated. As the Complaint alleges, and as numerous tenants testified from first-hand knowledge, NYCHA's apartments and buildings are literally falling apart-and NYCHA knows it. In March 2018, the New York State Department of Public Health found that 83% of inspected units contained some condition that could pose a health hazard to tenants. (Compl. ¶ 161.) Somewhat reminiscent of the biblical plagues of Egypt, these conditions include toxic lead paint, asthma-inducing mold, lack of heat, frequent elevator outages, and vermin infestations.

A. Lead Paint

Contrary to NYCHA's public assurances that lead paint was not widely used in NYCHA and that the vast majority of its developments did not have lead paint, the Government alleges that NYCHA's own documents reveal that more than half of NYCHA's developments contain lead paint somewhere. (Compl. ¶¶ 54-56.) At minimum, NYCHA's assertions indicate that roughly 51,000 apartments in at least 1,200 buildings in at least 92 developments have lead paint on their walls, floors, ceilings, windows, doors, radiators, or pipes. (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 57.) Approximately 173,000 residents, of which 11,500 are children under 6, live in these 92 developments. (Compl. ¶ 57.) But these numbers are only the tip of the iceberg-City and New York State health inspections have identified lead paint in developments that NYCHA previously declared to be lead free. (Compl. ¶ 56.)

Despite the prevalence of lead paint in NYCHA's apartments, NYCHA inexplicably failed to conduct required inspections and evaluations for years. For instance, NYCHA conducted less than 25% of the biennial risk assessment evaluations it should have conducted in the 92 developments with lead paint between 2010 and 2017. (Compl. ¶ 60.) For 50 of these 92 developments, NYCHA failed to conduct a single evaluation during that period. (Compl. ¶ 60.) NYCHA's senior management knew that these evaluations were not being conducted as early as 2011. (Compl. ¶ 95.) Even where NYCHA found a child with elevated blood lead levels who lived in a development previously determined to be lead free, it still-in defiance of all common sense-did not conduct risk assessments of that development. (Compl. ¶¶ 78-79.) Further, NYCHA simply stopped performing legally required annual visual assessments for lead paint hazards in 2012. (Compl. ¶¶ 64-67.) NYCHA's senior management allegedly knew that these assessments were not being conducted as early as 2013. (Compl. ¶ 96.) Although NYCHA partially restarted inspections in May 2016, the 4,000 visual assessments it conducted generated 3,900 work orders to abate lead paint hazards. (Compl. ¶¶ 66-67.) When extrapolated, this rate of work orders underscores the prevalence of lead paint hazards in NYCHA housing. (See Compl. ¶ 68 (alleging that more than 80% of the 9,000 apartments inspected in 2017 contained potential lead paint hazards).) And when NYCHA did perform maintenance work, the majority of that work was performed by employees who did not have proper training in lead-safe work practices and did not safely abate lead paint hazards. (Compl. ¶¶ 70-75, 80.) This, too, was known to NYCHA's management. (Compl. ¶¶ 99-100.)

Importantly, these statistics underscore the tangible impact of NYCHA's apathy on residents. Lead is toxic to all humans. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32.) Even small amounts of lead may lead to cancer, hypertension, kidney failure, and other serious health conditions. (Compl. ¶ 32.) Young children who unwittingly ingest even small amounts of lead paint flakes and lead dust may suffer irreversible neurological problems. (Compl. ¶ 32.) The Government alleges that between 2010 and 2016, the City's Department of Health confirmed that at least 19 children had elevated blood lead levels while living in lead-riddled apartments. (Compl. ¶¶ 82-85.) Despite senior management's knowledge, NYCHA refused to provide any information or report these cases to HUD. (Compl. ¶¶ 76-77, 101.) Moreover, as the Complaint alleges, this number massively understates the actual number of children afflicted with elevated blood lead levels for at least two reasons. (See Compl. ¶ 82.) First, NYCHA employed an obstructionist and counterintuitive policy of immediately contesting every order by the Department of Health to abate lead paint following an inspection. (Compl. ¶ 85.) These challenges often resulted in the Department of Health's retraction of findings of lead paint and withdrawal of abatement orders, rendering under-counting all but certain. (Compl. ¶¶ 84-87.) Second, only a subset of children for whom exposure to lead paint could cause deleterious health effects were tested for elevated blood lead levels. (Compl. ¶ 88.) As a NYCHA spokesperson intimated in a July 29, 2017 press release, even one child with elevated lead levels is one too many.

B. Mold, Heat, Elevators, and Vermin

Endemic mold, insufficient heat during the wintertime, broken elevators, and infestations of rats, mice, and cockroaches are also a part of daily life for NYCHA tenants. (Compl. ¶¶ 159-160.) Between 2013 and 2016, for example, NYCHA tenants made between 18,000 and 28,000 complaints about mold growth every year. (Compl. ¶ 164.) During that same period, tenants lodged between 117,000 and 146,000 complaints each year about flooding and leaks, which contribute to mold growth. (Compl. ¶ 166.) These annual numbers of complaints are increasing. (Compl. ¶¶ 164, 166.) And even where NYCHA claims to have addressed mold, it reoccurs 30% of the time. (Compl. ¶¶ 171, 176.) Similarly, the 825,000 heating complaints that NYCHA's tenants made between 2011 and 2016 bear testament to its widespread and persistent inability to provide sufficient heat during frigid New York winters. (Compl. ¶¶ 177-186.) For example, during the winter of 2015-2016, roughly 43,000 residents made over 155,000 complaints of insufficient heat. (Compl. ¶ 181.) Two years later, more than 323,000 residents-or over 80% of NYCHA's population-suffered heating outages lasting an average of 48 hours. (Compl. ¶ 183.)

As for NYCHA's elevators, the Government alleges that NYCHA experienced an average of 94 outages per elevator between 2011 and 2016. (Compl. ¶ 188.) In 2016, nearly 70% of buildings with at least one elevator had no working elevators at some time-an occurrence apparently so common that NYCHA refers to it by the colloquialism "double-header." (Compl. ¶¶ 190, 193.) Finally, cockroaches, mice, and rats are legion in NYCHA housing. Between 2010 and 2016, NYCHA tenants lodged over 280,000 complaints about cockroaches, more than 130,000 complaints about mice, and almost 15,000 complaints about rats-numbers that are also increasing. (Compl. ¶¶ 200, 202.)

These statistics, while helpful in understanding the scope of NYCHA's failures, are given meaning by the toll that these physical conditions take on NYCHA residents. Mold may release toxins and allergens correlated with respiratory problems, contributing to NYCHA residents' disproportionate rate of asthma hospitalizations and forcing tenants to remove sheets of mold themselves. (Compl. ¶¶ 165, 172.) Frigid apartments give tenants no choice but to leave their stoves and ovens on all night for heat. (Compl. ¶ 184.) Broken elevators trap residents for hours, put the elderly and disabled to the dilemma of waiting in lobbies or clambering up flights of stairs, and tragically, sometimes kill NYCHA residents. (Compl. ¶¶ 191-197.) And plainly, pests can carry disease, exacerbate respiratory conditions, and contaminate food and water. (Compl. ¶ 203.) While aware of these conditions, NYCHA ignored tenant complaints or only nominally addressed them because of incompetence or apathy. (See Compl. ¶¶ 166-168, 175-176 (describing NYCHA's closing of mold work orders without remediation); Compl. ¶ 186 (alleging NYCHA management's awareness of insufficient heat); Compl. ¶¶ 192-195 (alleging NYCHA's management's awareness of broken elevators); Compl. ¶¶ 204-210, 212-214 (detailing NYCHA's practices of arbitrarily closing out work orders or faking exterminations by spraying water).)

C. NYCHA's Deception

The Complaint alleges more than NYCHA's callous indifference to the well-being of its tenants, but that it whitewashed these deficiencies for years. According to the Government, NYCHA's deception was entrenched within its culture, from top-level management downward. In March 2016, for example, NYCHA's Chair testified before the New York City Council that NYCHA regularly performed visual assessments of lead paint as legally required. (Compl. ¶ 111.) Despite learning in April 2016 that NYCHA did not perform these visual assessments, NYCHA's Chair did nothing. (Compl. ¶ 97.) The false testimony by NYCHA's Chair is emblematic of NYCHA's pattern of deceiving anyone who it needed to falsely assure, whether it be elected officials, NYCHA's tenants, the general public, or HUD. (See Compl. ¶¶ 103-117.) Indeed, between 2010 and 2016, NYCHA falsely certified its compliance with HUD's lead-paint safety regulations and its obligation to provide "decent, safe, and sanitary" housing in certifications submitted to HUD, amendments to its Annual Contributions Contract with HUD, and in drawing down operating funds provided by HUD. (Compl. ¶¶ 92, 241-264.)

NYCHA also lied to HUD and the public to allay concerns over a work order backlog spinning out of control. Between 2010 and 2012, NYCHA faced mounting pressure from HUD and criticism from the media to address its backlog of 400,000 work orders, which the media blamed as the source of NYCHA's decaying apartments. (Compl. ¶¶ 215-220.) As of August 2012, NYCHA was on pace to exceed the 170,000 work orders that its 2011 inspections had generated. (Compl. ¶ 221.) Thus, it sought to engineer a backlog reduction. First, it suspended annual inspections between August 2012 and the summer of 2014. (Compl. ¶¶ 221-228.) Even though some of its executives expressed misgivings that a lengthy moratorium on inspections would run afoul of its obligations under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, those concerns went unaddressed. (Compl. ¶ 225.) This scheme allowed NYCHA to move 200,000 work orders off its books during the suspension. (Compl. ¶ 226.) Second, in February 2013, NYCHA revived a policy allowing staff to close work orders by reporting that the tenant was not home. (Compl. ¶¶ 233-235.) NYCHA's executives explicitly made this change to reduce the number of open work orders, which allowed them to close another 200,000 work orders in 2013. (Compl. ¶¶ 233-234.) Nonetheless, NYCHA triumphantly-but falsely-claimed to HUD and the public that it reduced its backlog based on initiatives to improve efficiency and productivity. (Compl. ¶¶ 229-232, 236-240.)

Finally, NYCHA sought to game HUD's public housing inspection system in order to avoid the additional scrutiny that came with low inspection scores, including more frequent inspections, corrective action plans, and the potential of a federal receivership. (See Compl. ¶¶ 121-132.) These inspections evaluate four "indicators" of a public housing agency's performance-physical conditions, financial condition, management, and capital funding. See 24 C.F.R. part 902 subpart A. A public housing agency receives an overall score, as well as separate scores for each indicator. 24 C.F.R. §§ 902.9, 902.11. In stark contrast to its lethargic attitude when it came to the health and safety of its tenants, NYCHA approached its inflation of HUD inspection scores with tactical precision and a take-no-prisoners approach. (See Compl. ¶ 156.)

On the eve of inspections, NYCHA transformed its developments into veritable Potemkin villages. The Complaint alleges that NYCHA's management circulated dossiers on individual inspectors so that its staff could identify and patch over specific conditions that certain inspectors were known to scrutinize. (Compl. ¶¶ 133-135.) And during inspections, NYCHA staff raced ahead of inspectors to address any unforeseen deficiencies. (Compl. ¶¶ 153-155.) NYCHA also employed a panoply of stratagems designed to temporarily conceal the crumbling physical conditions of its housing. These practices, which NYCHA's management knew about or actively directed, included (1) temporarily shutting off a building's water supply to hide water leaks; (2) plugging holes in walls and ceilings with newspaper and cork before painting over the hole; (3) building fake walls to conceal broken doors and dilapidated rooms; (4) locking doors and posting "danger" signs to keep inspectors away from rooms with dangerous or unsanitary conditions; and (5) hiding improperly stored hazardous materials. (See Compl. ¶¶ 137-148.) Remarkably, NYCHA indoctrinated its staff in these deceptive tactics through internal guidelines, including the decade-long distribution of a "Quick Fix Tips" guide on how to conceal problematic conditions from HUD inspectors. (Compl. ¶¶ 149-152.)

II. The Proposed Consent Decree

The Proposed Consent Decree is the product of months of negotiations among the Government, NYCHA, and the City of New York, all of whom are signatories to the agreement. In broad strokes, the proposed decree contains factual admissions by NYCHA, provisions regarding the selection of a monitor and the monitor's powers and responsibilities, provisions for funding by the City, and provisions for injunctive relief.

A. Factual Admissions

Under the Proposed Consent Decree, NYCHA admits that between 2010 and 2016, it falsely certified its compliance with federal statutory and regulatory requirements-including those relating to lead paint safety-to HUD. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 7(a)-(c).) NYCHA also admits that its inspections revealed that lead paint exists on the premises of more than half of its developments, including in the apartments of 92 developments. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 7(d).) These admissions also indicate that in the first half of this decade, NYCHA failed to conduct legally required lead paint risk assessment evaluations or visual assessments, failed to ensure that its staff use lead-safe work practices, and failed to provide HUD with any information regarding children living in NYCHA developments found to have elevated blood lead levels. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 7(e)-(h).)

Similarly, NYCHA makes admissions regarding many of the appalling conditions of its apartments. These include 300 cases between 2014 and 2016 in which NYCHA staff verified mold growth covering more than 100 square feet and a mold reoccurrence rate exceeding 30%; 825,000 complaints of insufficient heat between 2011 and 2016; the loss of heat for 80% of NYCHA's residents during the winter of 2017-2018; the majority of NYCHA elevator buildings experiencing at least one period with no functioning elevators in 2016; and more than 260,000 work orders for roaches, more than 90,000 work orders for mice, and nearly 36,000 work orders for rats between 2013 and 2016. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 7(i)-(q).) And despite these conditions, NYCHA admits that it reported to HUD between 2012 and 2013 that it had made significant progress in reducing its work order backlog, while obscuring the fact that it generated substantially fewer work orders by suspending annual inspections. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 7(r).) Finally, the Proposed Consent Decree contains admissions that NYCHA artificially inflated its HUD inspection scores, including through its distribution of a list of "Quick Fix Tips" to deceive HUD inspectors. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 7(s)-(u).)

B. Monitor Provisions

The Government characterizes the monitorship as the "centerpiece" of the Proposed Consent Decree. Even though the Government suggests that the direction NYCHA's obligations may take will depend on who the monitor is, it still-more than five months after filing the proposed decree-has not identified any candidate who it might nominate to be the monitor. (See July 10, 2018 Hr'g Tr. at 8 (statement by Government counsel that applicants for monitor may "have different ideas and structures for what they would bring to that process").) Thus, this Court's evaluation of whether the Proposed Consent Decree should be approved must necessarily occur with incomplete knowledge of its key monitorship component.

In any event, the monitor will be proposed by the Government in consultation with the City and NYCHA and-at the Government's discretion-with stakeholders such as New York State, the New York City Council, the City-Wide Council of Presidents, and other tenant groups. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 15.) The monitor is subject to this Court's supervision as an officer of the court. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 40.) NYCHA bears the burden of paying "all reasonable fees and costs" of the monitor. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 53.) The proposed decree provides no cap on the costs of the proposed monitorship, and the Government could not offer any estimate, recognizing only that "it will be a substantial amount of money" that "is hard to estimate until the monitor is in place." (See July 10, 2018 Hr'g Tr. at 8-9.)

Ultimately, the monitor's purpose is to "ensure that NYCHA (1) complies with all Lead Paint Laws, (2) provides housing that is decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair, ... (3) does not make false or misleading statements to the United States, and (4) implements the terms of the Consent Decree." (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 14.) To that end, the Proposed Consent Decree requires the monitor to ensure that NYCHA complies with federal, state, and local lead paint laws, including EPA and HUD regulations relating to lead-paint inspections, work practices, and disclosures. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 18(a).) Similarly, the monitor must ensure that NYCHA complies with HUD health and safety standards relating to mold, heating, elevators, and pests. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 18(b)-(e).) To address NYCHA's false or misleading statements to federal regulators, the Proposed Consent Decree requires NYCHA to consult with the monitor to create a Compliance Department, a Quality Assurance Department, and an Environmental Health and Safety Department. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 18(g), 63-65.)

The Proposed Consent Decree contemplates the future development and implementation of frameworks to assist NYCHA in achieving compliance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 18(b)-(f). Performance Requirements are "objective quantitative benchmarks" to be developed by the monitor, in consultation with NYCHA and the City, and approved by the Government. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 13(p), 23.) After a Performance Requirement becomes effective, NYCHA and the monitor must prepare an Action Plan that includes "specific actions" to bring NYCHA into compliance with the Performance Requirement and paragraph 18's mandates, "a date certain" to satisfy those requirements, and "interim milestones with specific completion dates." (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 27.) Action Plans may also provide for policies, procedures, systems, or structures for NYCHA to adopt to comply with the decree. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 34.) Apart from Action Plans, NYCHA must also work with the monitor to develop an Operational Plan that "clearly delineat[es]" the respective spheres of NYCHA's Chair, General Manager, and Board, as well as an Organizational Plan directed toward implementing changes to NYCHA's structure. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 28, 29.)

To assist in achieving the goals of the monitorship, the Proposed Consent Decree permits the monitor full access to NYCHA's documents, data, and other information. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 19.) The decree also grants the monitor full access to NYCHA's services, programs, facilities, and premises. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 19.) Additionally, the monitor may communicate with NYCHA's personnel without any prior notice to or permission by NYCHA. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 20.) The monitor may also engage any third parties at its discretion to assist in performing its responsibilities. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 17.) Finally, the monitor may seek "extraordinary relief" from this Court, "including the authority to enter into contracts on NYCHA's behalf," upon a showing of "compelling evidence"

that NYCHA's inability to comply with an Action Plan frustrates the purpose of the proposed decree. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 37.)

Evaluation of the monitor and NYCHA's progress occurs through reporting and feedback mechanisms. The monitor must submit a quarterly report to the Government, NYCHA, and this Court setting forth the work performed by the monitor and NYCHA's progress and compliance. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 41-44.) After the Proposed Consent Decree has been in place for five years, these periodic reports must also assess whether NYCHA meets the requirements for termination of the decree. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 43, 97.) Separately, NYCHA community leaders and representatives may provide feedback through a Community Advisory Committee that meets at least twice a year to discuss the achievement of the monitorship's purposes and to advise the monitor on the prioritization of projects. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 21.) Outside of the Community Advisory Committee, the monitor must also formulate procedures through which residents and other NYCHA stakeholders may provide input. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 22.)

C. Funding

To assist NYCHA in complying with the Proposed Consent Decree and the to-be-determined Performance Requirements and plans, the City commits to providing almost $3 billion in previously budgeted capital and expense funding, as well as an additional $1 billion in capital funding over the next four years and $200 million in capital funding each subsequent year. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 54.) If the City fails to furnish the capital funds during the period prescribed in paragraph 54, those funding obligations will be carried over to the next fiscal year. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 57.) Similarly, capital funds that NYCHA fails to spend will be "carried over and added to each subsequent fiscal year until spent." (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 57.) Unbelievably, despite NYCHA's $31.8 billion capital needs deficit and its widely publicized heating crisis last winter, the Government attests that NYCHA already left unspent roughly $377 million of the $483 million in capital funding provided by the City for fiscal year 2018, which will be carried over into fiscal year 2019. (Declaration of Monica P. Folch in Support of the United States' Motion to Enter the Proposed Consent Decree, ECF No. 45 ("Folch Decl."), ¶ 3.)

These funding provisions are somewhat malleable. With respect to the City's funding obligations, the City retains the option to authorize additional capital or expense spending to NYCHA, although the City's counsel confirmed that the City had no plans to allocate additional funding at present. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 60; Sept. 26, 2018 Hr'g Tr. at 188.) However, the Proposed Consent Decree also sets forth procedures for the City to delay or be relieved by this Court of its funding obligations in the event of undue financial hardship that renders it unable to pay some or all of the amounts prescribed in paragraph 54. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 61-62.) Moreover, the proposed decree notes that $550 million in state resources "may be available," in addition to ongoing operating and capital funds from HUD, which will not be offset by the amount that NYCHA is slated to receive from the City. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 38, 52; see Compl. ¶ 18 (alleging that roughly $900 million of NYCHA's operating budget comes from HUD and that HUD provides over $300 million per year in capital funding).)

D. Injunctive Relief

The Proposed Consent Decree requires NYCHA to take certain specified actions without waiting for the effective date of the proposed decree, the appointment of a monitor, or the issuance of an Action Plan. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 66.) For instance, NYCHA must comply with HUD and EPA regulations relating to lead-safe work practices and abatement. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 67.) Under the Proposed Consent Decree, NYCHA must also take steps to notify residents of lead paint to which they may be exposed. In particular, NYCHA must notify residents if their apartments or common areas in their buildings have been identified as containing lead paint no later than November 8, 2018-or if a child under 6 resides in such an apartment, no later than September 9, 2018. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 68.) Finally, NYCHA must keep at each development's management office physical copies of all materials required to be disclosed by HUD and EPA's lead-disclosure regulations. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 69.) Those materials must be present and available for inspection no later than October 9, 2018 and must be sent to each resident no later than December 8, 2018. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 69.) To date, this Court has not received any update from the parties as to whether NYCHA has complied with the obligations for which the proposed decree sets a specific deadline.

DISCUSSION

The Second Circuit recognizes a "strong federal policy favoring the approval and enforcement of consent decrees." SEC v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts., Inc., 752 F.3d 285, 292 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted). A district court only "has the power to enter or reject such a judgment, not to alter it." SEC v. Petro-Suisse Ltd., 2013 WL 5348595, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013). Although a district court is not merely a "rubber stamp" for a government agency seeking the entry of a consent decree, see Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 293, its review of a proposed consent decree is-for better or worse-more deferential in the context of a government enforcement action, see SEC v. Caledonian Bank Ltd., 317 F.R.D. 358, 374 n.15 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing SEC v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., 34 F.Supp.3d 379, 380-81 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ).

The "proper standard for reviewing a proposed consent judgment involving an enforcement agency requires that the district court determine whether the proposed consent decree is fair and reasonable, with the additional requirement that the 'public interest would not be disserved,' in the event that the consent decree includes injunctive relief." Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 294 (internal citations omitted). Absent a "substantial basis in the record" to conclude that the consent decree is not fair and reasonable or that the public interest would be disserved, "the district court is required to enter the order," irrespective of the adequacy of the consent decree. Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 294. While this deferential standard arose in the context of an SEC enforcement action, courts in this circuit have since extended it to other government enforcement contexts. See, e.g., U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2016 WL 6135664, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016) ; United States v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 2014 WL 3057960, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014).

But two aspects of this action cast doubt over whether Citigroup ought to apply here. The first aspect relates to the nature of the claims asserted by the Government. Certainly, an action on behalf of the EPA to address violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act falls within the Government's enforcement purview. See, e.g., United States v. Accolade Constr. Grp., Inc., 2017 WL 2271462, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. ). But whether actions brought under the Anti-Fraud Injunction Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1345 or the U.S. Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j) are properly characterized as government enforcement actions within Citigroup's ambit is a thornier question. In particular, 18 U.S.C. § 1345 simply provides a procedural vehicle for the Government to enjoin substantive violations of enumerated federal fraud statutes or restrain the fruits of such violations during the pendency of a criminal prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 1345. The legislative history corroborates the procedural nature of § 1345 as allowing "the Attorney General to put a speedy end to a fraud scheme by seeking an injunction in federal district court" based on Congress' concern that "innocent people" may continue to be victimized during the pendency of an investigation of a fraudulent scheme before the case is ready for prosecution, which "often takes months, if not years." See S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 401-02 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3539-40.

Likewise, the Government's "claim" under § 1437d(j)(3) arguably falls outside the archetypical government enforcement framework. In that paradigm, a statutory regime (such as the Toxic Substances Control Act or the federal securities laws) proscribes certain conduct and prescribes penalties and remedies to punish and address statutory violations. Cf. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. FDA, 760 F.3d 151, 168 (2d Cir. 2014) (describing the "traditional model of administrative or judicial enforcement" as featuring "an investigation by executive or administrative personnel, followed by the issuance of a case-initiating document that sets forth the conclusions or charges reached by the prosecuting authority," followed by an administrative hearing or lawsuit that results in an adjudication by the agency or a court that leads to the imposition of remedies and penalties). By contrast, § 1437d(j) merely enumerates various administrative remedies that HUD may employ to remedy a public housing agency's "substantial default." See 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j)(3). Put differently, 18 U.S.C. § 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j) do not directly govern the conduct of the enforced party, but set forth procedures addressed to the enforcing authority.

The second aspect relates to the broader nature of this action. In particular, Citigroup's focus on judicial deference to a government agency's consent decree is somewhat in tension with a court's quasi-managerial role in implementing a consent decree to reform a state or local institution. See Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., 404 F.3d 821, 827 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Navarro-Ayala v. Hernandez-Colon, 951 F.2d 1325, 1338 (1st Cir. 1991) ) (observing that "[i]n overseeing broad institutional reform litigation, the district court becomes in many ways more like a manager or policy planner than a judge"); Angela R. ex rel. Hesselbein v. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320, 326 (8th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that the entry of such a consent decree "is often only the beginning of extended judicial involvement"). The role of the court in these so-called "institutional reform" cases typically entails ordering broad relief to remedy the legal violations of an institution, which unavoidably requires a court to grapple with policy considerations. By contrast, a court's role in the Citigroup context is constrained to ensuring the legal and procedural propriety of the proposed decree in deference to the government agency's exercise of discretion-such as the SEC's decision to settle with a private party for a certain sum of money. Nonetheless, because neither the parties nor Intervenors disputes Citigroup's applicability or articulates another standard that should apply, this Court assumes that Citigroup governs.

I. Fairness and Reasonableness

In reviewing a government agency's consent decree for fairness and reasonableness, a court should at minimum "assess (1) the basic legality of the decree; (2) whether the terms of the decree, including its enforcement mechanism, are clear; (3) whether the consent decree reflects a resolution of the actual claims in the complaint; and (4) whether the consent decree is tainted by improper collusion or corruption of some kind." Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 294-95 (internal citations omitted). Though the Second Circuit recognized without providing further guidance that a district court "may need to make additional inquiry to ensure that the consent decree is fair and reasonable" depending on the decree, the "primary focus of the inquiry ... should be on ensuring the consent decree is procedurally proper, using objective measures similar to the factors set out above, taking care not to infringe on the [agency's] discretionary authority to settle on a particular set of terms." Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 295.

A. Basic Legality

A proposed consent decree is legal "so long as it is within the Court's authority to enter the decree and within the Plaintiff's authority to enforce it." Caledonian Bank, 317 F.R.D. at 370 (quotation marks omitted). For instance, a proposed consent decree may not satisfy the basic legality requirement if a statute prohibits its entry in the absence of statutorily required findings. See Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 294-95 (citing Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144, 158 (2d Cir. 1999) (en banc) (discussing the Prison Litigation Reform Act's need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement for prospective relief) ). Indeed, courts in this circuit analyzing this factor have looked to whether the relevant statutes under which the action was brought permit the relief requested in the consent decree. E.g., Caledonian Bank, 317 F.R.D. at 370 (examining whether the proposed decree's injunctive relief and disgorgement provisions fell within the SEC's authority under the federal securities laws); Int'l Bus. Machs., 2014 WL 3057960, at *2 (determining whether the provisions for IBM's reimbursement of "response costs" incurred by the EPA and IBM's agreement to take future remedial action comported with CERCLA).

Here, the Government's legality argument posits that while the statutes under which this action was brought do not explicitly authorize a monitor, a court may do so in its broad equitable discretion because those statutes authorize equitable relief. But such a labored argument is unnecessary. Certainly, "[t]he power of the federal courts to appoint special masters to monitor compliance with their remedial orders is well established." City of N.Y. v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 145 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Apple, 992 F.Supp.2d 263, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases). This uncontroversial precept is beside the point, however, because the relief is not the monitor in the first instance, but the remedial action that this Court requires NYCHA-the enjoined defendant-to take.

While not entirely clear, a generous read of the Proposed Consent Decree suggests the following essential provisions: (1) a requirement that NYCHA comply with federal, state, and local lead paint statutes and regulations, (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 18(a) ); (2) a requirement that NYCHA comply with federal regulations requiring HUD housing to be decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair, (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 18(b)-(f) ); (3) injunctive relief requiring NYCHA to establish a Compliance Department, Environmental Health and Safety Department, and Quality Assurance Unit in consultation with the monitor, (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 63-65); and (4) injunctive relief requiring NYCHA to comply with federal regulations and rules relating to lead-safe work practices, lead abatement, lead paint disclosure and notification, and prioritization of lead paint hazards, (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 66-70). As an initial matter, the Toxic Substances Control Act expressly confers upon district courts the authority to restrain any violation of certain prohibited acts, including the failure to comply with the federal lead-based paint rules promulgated by the EPA in 40 C.F.R. part 745. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 2616, 2689. And even to the extent that the proposed decree's injunctive relief is not expressly contemplated by the relevant provisions on which this action is premised, federal courts undoubtedly possess the authority to order relief for state and local officials and agencies' failure to comply with federal law. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 179, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992). Nothing in those statutes-i.e., the U.S. Housing Act, the federal Anti-Fraud Injunction Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act-precludes the exercise of such authority.

In their opposition papers, Intervenors deploy the same arguments they asserted in seeking intervention-namely, that certain federal statutes and regulations confer participation and economic rights on NYCHA tenants. See United States v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth., 326 F.R.D. 411, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). This time, however, Intervenors repackage them in support of their contention that to pass Citigroup's basic legality test, a consent decree that implicates NYCHA's management must explicitly provide participation and economic opportunities for tenants. As an initial matter, Intervenors' contentions rest on the faulty premise that the Proposed Consent Decree-merely by omission-encroaches upon the tenant opportunities contemplated by 24 C.F.R. § 964.135, 42 U.S.C. § 1437c-1, and 12 U.S.C. § 1701u. But more to the point, Intervenors' arguments reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Citigroup's "basic legality" factor, which focuses on this Court's authority to enter the Proposed Consent Decree and the Government's authority to enforce it. Whatever the nature of NYCHA tenants' statutory or regulatory rights or interests in managerial or economic opportunities, the statutes and regulations that Intervenors cite simply have no bearing on the legality of the proposed decree.

B. Clarity of the Proposed Decree

The Proposed Consent Decree's indefiniteness as to NYCHA's obligations and the enforcement mechanism forecloses approval of the settlement at this juncture. Cf. Int'l Bus. Machs., 2014 WL 3057960, at *3 (finding consent decree sufficiently clear where the decree detailed "specific enforcement mechanisms" and detailed "Defendants' responsibilities under the decree"). The case that Citigroup cites for this factor illustrates why. Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 295 (citing Angela R. ex rel. Hesselbein v. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320 (8th Cir. 1993) ). In Clinton, which involved a "comprehensive revision of the child welfare system in Arkansas," the Eighth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in entering a consent decree that did not properly define its enforcement mechanisms. Clinton, 999 F.2d at 322, 325 (describing ambiguities in which parties could enforce which provisions of the consent decree). The Eighth Circuit explained that "[u]nless [the enforcement] mechanism is clearly defined-in terms of who may bring an enforcement action, for what kinds of violations, and so forth-it is impossible to determine," as relevant here, "the burden that approval of the decree will impose upon the federal judiciary." Clinton, 999 F.2d at 325 (citing Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 94 S.Ct. 713, 38 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974) ) (referencing the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d) ); cf. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461-62 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("[T]he district judge who must preside over the implementation of the decree is certainly entitled to insist on that degree of precision concerning the resolution of known issues as to make his task, in resolving subsequent disputes, reasonably manageable.").

The concerns over vague enforcement mechanisms are fully animated in this case. In relevant part, the Government reserves "all legal and equitable remedies available to enforce the provisions of [the] Consent Decree," which expressly provides for this Court's continuing jurisdiction in "effectuating or enforcing compliance with [its] terms." (Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 73, 84.) At the other end of the spectrum, the Proposed Consent Decree provides that it "shall not be construed to ...

grant any cause of action to[ ] anyone not a Party to [the] Consent Decree." (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 78.) But these broad contours merely memorialize the Government's non-waiver of its enforcement authority and the uncontroversial proposition that a court possesses the authority to ensure compliance with its orders, including consent decrees. See Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 2007 WL 1711775, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2007) (citing Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir. 1985) ). Put differently, they offer scant precision on the provisions or obligations (to the extent that they are defined) that are enforceable, the types of violations that may be enforced, or the mechanisms by which noncompliance with the Proposed Consent Decree may be addressed.

To be sure, the indeterminacy of the enforcement provisions goes hand in hand with the indeterminacy of NYCHA's obligations under the proposed decree generally. For instance, the injunctive relief includes a requirement that NYCHA "comply in all respects with the lead-safe work practices" required by HUD and EPA regulations "and with the Abatement Rule, 40 C.F.R. part 745, subpart L." (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 67.) This requirement, however, is not "specific and definite enough to apprise [NYCHA] of the conduct that is being proscribed." Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Cleopatra Records, Inc., 906 F.3d 253, 258 (2d Cir. 2018) ; see also Schmidt, 414 U.S. at 476, 94 S.Ct. 713 (observing that "[s]ince an injunctive order prohibits conduct under threat of judicial punishment, basic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed"). Stated differently, even though the substantive legal requirements with which NYCHA must comply may be identifiable, whether its obligations are sufficiently determinate is a separate analytical issue. Accord Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Bayer AG, 14 F.3d 733, 748 (2d Cir. 1994) (rejecting injunctive provisions as insufficiently specific even where they had identified the "particular laws and contracts upon which [plaintiff] had based its action" that defendant was enjoined from violating).

The parties' own papers illustrate the formlessness of NYCHA's obligations. In reiterating the urgent need for a monitor, the Government claims that NYCHA has already violated paragraph 67 of the Proposed Consent Decree by failing to "immediately" comply with its obligations regarding lead-safe work practices even before the approval of the proposed decree. (See Memorandum of Law in Support of the United States' Motion to Enter the Proposed Consent Decree, ECF No. 44 ("Gov't Brief"), at 13-16; Folch Decl. ¶¶ 4-8.) Unsurprisingly, NYCHA disputes that it violated paragraph 67, explaining that it has been making efforts to comply that involve many complex and interrelated steps, which take time to implement. (See NYCHA's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Enter the Consent Decree, ECF No. 46 ("NYCHA Brief"), at 4 n.11; Folch Decl., Ex. C.) Whatever the merits of the parties' positions, NYCHA's evident-and facially reasonable-belief that it is not in breach of the Proposed Consent Decree suggest that its terms are not sufficiently clear.

Moreover, even assuming that the obligations the Proposed Consent Decree imposes on NYCHA to comply with various health and safety regulations may fairly be construed as injunctive relief-which, as noted below, may not be entirely clear-those terms are similarly amorphous. In relevant part, the agreement provides that NYCHA shall comply with (1) federal, state, and local lead paint safety statutes and regulations; and (2) federal regulations requiring HUD housing to be decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair with respect to mold, heating, elevators, and pests. (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 18(a)-(f).) These provisions also require NYCHA to (1) make its housing free of lead paint "within an accelerated timeframe"; (2) "remedy the conditions described in the Complaint" related to mold, heating, elevators, and pests "and prevent recurrence of those conditions"; and (3) "attempt to avoid and promptly address any other health and safety issue that arises." (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 18(a)-(f).) Finally, the Proposed Consent Decree requires NYCHA to, "[a]s soon as practicable after the Monitor's appointment," create certain plans "collaboratively" or "in consultation with" the monitor "for the achievement of" or "to achieve sustained compliance with" subdivisions (a)-(g) of paragraph 18. (See generally Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 27-34.)

At the outset, the body of statutes and regulations with which NYCHA must comply is not entirely defined. In relevant part, paragraph 18 requires NYCHA to "comply in all respects with Lead Paint Laws," (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 18(a)(7) ), which is defined to mean "federal, state or local lead paint safety statutes and regulations," (Proposed Consent Decree ¶ 13(l ) ). While the proposed decree lists several federal statutes and regulations that are included within this definition, it does not indicate which state or local statutes and regulations would form the basis for NYCHA's obligations. And even though paragraph 18 requires more than a naked directive to comply with the laws it does identify, its instructions to remedy and prevent recurrence of various health and safety conditions described in the Complaint as well as those that may arise still fail to specify "the ways in which [NYCHA] must alter [its] behavior." See Mickalis Pawn Shop, 645 F.3d at 144 (finding insufficient for Rule 65(d) an obligation to "act 'in full conformity with applicable laws pertaining to firearms,' and to 'adopt[ ] appropriate prophylactic measures to prevent violation' of those laws, without specifying which laws are 'applicable' or identifying the ways in which the defendants must alter their behavior to comply with those laws"); accord Perez v. Danbury Hosp., 347 F.3d 419, 424 (2d Cir. 2003) (reiterating the "well-established principle that the language of a consent decree must dictate what a party is required to do and what it must refrain from doing").

Additionally, the Proposed Consent Decree's definition of NYCHA's obligations by reference to the Complaint "is expressly prohibited by Rule 65(d), which provides that '[e]very order granting an injunction' must 'describe in reasonable detail-and not by referring to the complaint or other document-the act or acts restrained or required.' " Mickalis Pawn Shop, 645 F.3d at 146 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) ) (emphasis in original). These are not simply "technical requirements," but are meant to "prevent uncertainty and confusion on the part of those faced with injunctive orders, and to avoid the possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree too vague to be understood." Schmidt, 414 U.S. at 476, 94 S.Ct. 713. While the temptation to define NYCHA's remedial obligation by reference to the Complaint is certainly understandable given the breadth of the wrongdoing alleged in the pleading, the risk of uncertainty and confusion is magnified precisely for that reason.

Nor are these deficiencies cured by the Proposed Consent Decree's extensive provisions setting forth the powers and responsibilities of the monitor in developing and implementing the plans and performance requirements that NYCHA must follow.

(See Proposed Consent Decree ¶¶ 18-37.) As the Second Circuit has explained, a consent decree's "sweeping delegations of power to the Special Master violate[s] Rule 65(d)" because "[a] court is required to frame its orders so that those who must obey them will know what the court intends to forbid." Mickalis Pawn Shop, 645 F.3d at 145-46 (citing Diapulse Corp. of Am. v. Carba, Ltd., 626 F.2d 1108, 1111 (2d Cir. 1980) ) (emphasis in original); accord United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971). To be fair, the directive that NYCHA must formulate plans to achieve and sustain compliance with federal health and safety regulations offers more clarity than other previously described provisions. Still, its ambiguity as to when those plans must be developed or how much cooperation with the monitor is necessary does not allow this Court to meaningfully determine when those provisions have been violated. Accord King v. Allied Vision, Ltd., 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995) (explaining that to issue a contempt order, a movant must establish that the order "leaves 'no uncertainty in the minds of those to whom it is addressed,' who 'must be able to ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden' " (internal citations omitted) ).

Ultimately, many of NYCHA's obligations relating to the health and safety conditions at the core of this litigation are too indeterminate for this Court to approve the Proposed Consent Decree. And in this Court's view, the lack of clarity is compounded by the more basic question of whether subsections (a)-(f) of paragraph 18 of the proposed decree affirmatively enjoin NYCHA or merely set forth the monitor's duty to ensure that NYCHA complies with federal health and safety standards-a distinction implied by the parties' briefs. (Compare Gov't Brief, at 21-22 (framing the decree's relief in terms of the monitor provisions), with NYCHA Brief, at 4 (framing the decree's requirements in terms of NYCHA's obligations).) Without additional concreteness, NYCHA cannot possibly know the acts that are restrained or required, and this Court cannot fulfill its duty to enforce compliance with its orders.

This is not to say that the Proposed Consent Decree must painstakingly detail every act that NYCHA must take or forbear from taking. Indeed, such an attempt would almost certainly be a fool's errand in the context of institutional reform litigation, for which injunctions "are not so much peremptory commands to be obeyed in terms[ ] as they are future-oriented plans designed to achieve broader public policy objectives in a complex, ongoing fact situation." N.Y. State Ass'n for Retarded Children Inc. v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 970 n.17 (2d Cir. 1983) (quoting Abram Chayes, Public Law Litigation and the Burger Court, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 56 (1982) ). But Citigroup fairly suggests that even consent decrees that implement broad institutional reform-such as the comprehensive revision of Arkansas' child welfare system-require some threshold of clarity. Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 295 (citing Clinton, 999 F.2d at 325 ). Whether that threshold ought to be higher based on the lasting nature of injunctive relief in institutional reform litigation, or lower to account for more dynamic factual circumstances, need not be resolved on this motion. The current failure of the Proposed Consent Decree to sufficiently define its injunctive relief and enforcement mechanism precludes its approval.

C. Resolution of Actual Claims

A consent decree that settles a government enforcement action must also reflect a resolution of the "actual claims in the complaint." Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 295. Few post-Citigroup cases in this circuit have examined when a consent decree would or would not reflect a resolution of the actual claims asserted. This sparseness of case authority may in part be attributable to decrees that order relief that plainly resolves the asserted claims. For instance, another judge in this district found that a consent decree requiring the defendant "to reimburse EPA for past-response costs and to take certain remedial actions" in the decree "directly resolve[d]" two claims "seeking reimbursement for Plaintiff's past-response costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and ... seeking remedial actions from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9606(a)." Int'l Bus. Machs., 2014 WL 3057960, at *3 ; see 42 U.S.C. § 9606(a) (authorizing "such relief as may be necessary to abate" an "imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility" and "such relief as the public interest and the equities of the case may require").

Certainly, a consent decree that orders relief authorized by the statutory regime under which a claim is brought satisfies this factor, even if that relief is less than that which could have been obtained after trial. It should be uncontroversial, for example, that a proposed consent decree in an SEC enforcement case that grants disgorgement and enjoins a defendant from violating the federal securities laws clearly reflects a resolution of claims brought under the anti-fraud provisions of those statutes. E.g., Caledonian Bank, 317 F.R.D. at 369-70 ; see generally SEC v. Subaye, Inc., 2014 WL 4652578 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2014) ; SEC v. CR Intrinsic Inv'rs, LLC, 26 F.Supp.3d 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Likewise, the Proposed Consent Decree's injunctive relief requiring NYCHA to comply with its lead-safe work practices, lead abatement, and lead disclosure obligations under 40 C.F.R. part 745, subparts E, F, and L clearly resolves the Government's Toxic Substances Control Act claim.

The Government's other claims raise the question of whether a consent decree that does not provide for any statutorily authorized relief, but separate injunctive relief that purports to address the underlying conduct, can be fairly said to reflect a "resolution of the actual claims in the complaint." Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 295. In particular, the Complaint asserts a claim for substantial default pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j)(3) and a claim to enjoin NYCHA's ongoing or impending false statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345. Section 1437d(j)(3) authorizes the HUD Secretary to take a broad panoply of remedial actions if a public housing agency substantially defaults on its covenants or conditions under an annual contributions contract, or if a public housing agency designated by HUD as "troubled" substantially defaults on an agreement with HUD to improve its management performance. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j)(3) ; see also 24 C.F.R. § 907.3 (enumerating bases for substantial default, including the violation of a federal statute or regulation). These remedies do not require the public housing agency's consent or contemplate judicial involvement, except that the HUD Secretary may petition a court for the appointment of a receiver, see 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j)(3)(A)(ii), which the court "shall appoint" to conduct the public housing agency's affairs "upon a determination that a substantial default has occurred and without regard to the availability of alternative remedies," see 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j)(3)(F). Separately, the Anti-Fraud Injunction Act authorizes the Attorney General to bring a federal civil action to enjoin ongoing or impending violations of enumerated federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 1001. See 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(1).

It bears underscoring that the Proposed Consent Decree does not seek the judicial appointment of a receiver or any of the other remedies set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(j)(3) or 24 C.F.R. § 907.7. In fact, HUD specifically reserves its right to "appoint, or to seek judicial appointment of, a receiver for substantial default, as well as a