Sripetch v. SEC · ¶12

As much as it resolved, Liu left some questions unanswered. We did not decide whether the SEC may seek disgorgement when it is “infeasible to distribute the collected funds to investors.” Id., at 89. Nor did we decide what showing the Commission might have to make to prove “[in]feasibility.” Ibid., n. 5. (Those questions remain for another day yet, as they have no bearing on this case.) Liu also left unaddressed what statute of limitations might apply to disgorgement actions under § 78u(d)(5). True, Kokesh had held that § 2462's 5-year limitations period governed actions seeking disgorgement because, at that time, the remedy amounted to a civil penalty. See 581 U. S., at 467. But going forward, Liu clarifed, disgorgement would need to follow “traditional equitable principles,” which do not confer the power to impose a “penalty.” 591 U. S., at 85, 90; see also Marshall v. Vicksburg, 15…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.