Sripetch v. SEC · ¶46

uitable remedy under § 78u(d)(5) in 2020. In Liu v. SEC, this Court held that, despite disgorgement's “relatively recent vintage” and “ ` “protean character,” ' ” it was a traditional equitable remedy authorized by § 78u(d)(5)'s general provision for equitable relief. 591 U. S., at 76, n. 1, 80; see also id., at 94 (Thomas, J., dissenting). The Court also emphasized that disgorgement would need to comply with traditional equitable rules, such as the duty to return disgorged funds to victims, at least when doing so was “feasible.” See id., at 87–90 (majority opinion); see also ante, at 559–560.

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