Sripetch v. SEC · ¶62

It makes sense that Congress made disgorgement a legal remedy after Liu. Although Liu characterized disgorgement as an equitable remedy, it left the requirements for disgorgement unclear. And, because “[d]isgorgement is not a traditional form of equitable relief,” lower courts could not rely on historical practice for guidance in implementing the remedy this Court recognized. 591 U. S., at 94 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Instead, lower courts could resort only to the language in Liu itself, which raised more questions than it answered: Liu defned disgorgement as “a remedy that compels each defendant to pay his profts (and sometimes, though it is not clear when, all of his codefendants' profts) to a third- party Government agency (which sometimes, though it is not clear when, passes the money on to victims).” Id., at 94– 95. Given this vague definition and the doctrine's lack of foundation…

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