Sripetch v. SEC · ¶35

At bottom, Mr. Sripetch's real worry seems to be that, without a pecuniary loss requirement, the SEC might lose sight of traditional equitable principles altogether. It might, he says, try to use Congress's newly added provision in § 78u(d)(7) as a tool to resume its efforts to seek penalties for the Treasury rather than compensation for victims. Brief for Petitioner 22–23. Such a result, Mr. Sripetch reminds us, would hardly be consistent with traditional equitable principles, which never “len[d] [their] aid” to a “penalty.” Marshall, 15 Wall., at 149; see also Liu, 591 U. S., at 82, 90. And, he hints, we should be on high alert for this problem given that, in this very case, the district court did not require the SEC to explain how it planned to distribute its disgorgement award to wronged investors. See Pet. App. 31a; ECF Doc. 142–1, pp. 9–10.

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