The brief contended that by failing to conduct an adequate economic analysis of its recent private fund adviser rulemaking, the SEC has violated its statutory obligation under Section 202(c) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to “consider” whether the rulemaking “will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.” The brief requested the panel of the Fifth Circuit to invalidate the SEC’s final rule as “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” pursuant to Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act.