Sripetch v. SEC · ¶59
Disgorgement more closely resembles legal restitution than any equitable remedy. In common-law courts, plaintiffs could invoke the writ of assumpsit to “ `impos[e] a merely personal liability upon the defendant to pay a sum of money,' ” even when the plaintiff could not “ `assert title or right to possession of particular property.' ” Great-West Life, 534 U. S., at 213; see Moses v. Macferlan, 2 Burr. 1005, 1012, 97 Eng. Rep. 676, 681 (K. B. 1760). Legal restitution, unlike equitable restitution, does not purport “to restore to the plaintiff particular funds”; it instead vindicates the plaintiff 's “ `just grounds for recovering money to pay for some benefit the defendant had received.' ” Great-West Life, 534 U. S., at 213–214. The SEC has no prior claim to ownership of or an interest in the defendant's funds; instead, the SEC takes money from the defendant based on his unjust proft at…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.