Consent Decree Vs Consent Agreement
Some types of remedies require a court to issue an approval order. In the class action lawsuit, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Procedure requires a federal district court to decide in advance whether a proposed transaction is fair, appropriate, and appropriate before it is approved. Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C.A. § 16(b)–h), the court must review the proposed approval orders in the antitrust proceedings filed by the Department of Justice. The law directs the court to verify certain points, including whether the order promotes the public interest. The usual consent decree is not self-executing.  An approval decree is implemented when the parties transpose their agreements from the document to reality.    The judge who signed the decree cannot be involved or supervise the implementation.   The judge can only intervene to assist in enforcement if a party complains to the court that an opponent is not providing benefits as agreed.
 In this case, the insulting party would be held to be in contempt.  In more complex civil proceedings concerning the exercise of transactions or industries and in the case of actions taken by the government against companies that have allegedly violated regulatory legislation, approval decrees are regularly part of the settlement agreement. A court retains the jurisdiction and control necessary to ensure that the terms of the agreement are enforced. The threat of an act of non-compliance may deter defendants from dragging their feet or attempting to evade the intent of the agreement. In addition, the terms of the transaction are public. Consent agreements are common in uncontested divorce cases and a court may issue a binding divorce decision based on the agreement and circumstances. A party may be sanctioned following a request brought to the attention if it refuses to sign a written settlement that contains terms agreed orally in court: “An agreement announced in the minutes becomes binding even if a party has a change of attitude after accepting its conditions, but before reducing the terms to the letter.” 69 The Tribunal cannot impose a settlement agreement if there is no settlement agreement; a concluded agreement, approved by the parties, is necessary to establish a breach of a settlement agreement. The power to impose a transaction can only be exercised if the terms have been agreed, although they are not in writing.
The District Court “may not pronounce a `compliant judgment` without the effective agreement of the parties”.51 Recovery. . . .