Sripetch v. SEC · ¶34

Relatedly, Mr. Sripetch submits that allowing a court to award his victims monetary relief even when they have not suffered any pecuniary loss would be inconsistent with Liu's description of disgorgement as a remedy designed to “ `restor[e] the status quo.' ” Id., at 80 (quoting Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 424 (1987)). Again, we disagree. Perhaps in a perfect world every remedy would “restore the status quo” by putting both a wrongdoer and his victim in the same position they would have occupied absent the wrongful conduct. But in some instances, a defendant can unjustly enrich himself even without leaving a plaintiff worse off fnancially. And in those instances, a court must choose between two status quos: It can either restore the defendant to his prior position by stripping him of his unjust gains, or it can allow the defendant to benefit from his misconduct because the…

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