刘之后又有什么新鲜事:围绕SEC拆分的悬而未决的问题

M. Koch, C. J. Lawrence, Aaron W. Lipson, R. Ryan, Richard H. Walker, Jessica Rapoport, Katie Barry
{"title":"刘之后又有什么新鲜事:围绕SEC拆分的悬而未决的问题","authors":"M. Koch, C. J. Lawrence, Aaron W. Lipson, R. Ryan, Richard H. Walker, Jessica Rapoport, Katie Barry","doi":"10.1108/joic-08-2020-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nTo analyze the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC, where the Court confronted the issue of whether the SEC can obtain disgorgement in federal district court proceedings.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and a summary of the background and opinion in Liu v. SEC. This article then focuses on the practical implications of Liu on SEC disgorgement by considering questions left open by the decision.\n\n\nFindings\nThe Court in Liu held that the SEC is authorized to seek disgorgement as “equitable relief” as long as it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” But the Court left many unanswered questions, such as whether disgorged funds must always be returned to investors for disgorgement to be a permissible equitable remedy, whether the SEC can obtain joint-and-several disgorgement liability from unrelated co-defendants, what “legitimate expenses” should be deducted in disgorgement calculations, and to what extent the SEC can seek disgorgement in cases when victims are difficult to identify.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nOriginal, practical guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.\n","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is new after Liu: unsettled questions surrounding SEC disgorgement\",\"authors\":\"M. Koch, C. J. Lawrence, Aaron W. Lipson, R. Ryan, Richard H. Walker, Jessica Rapoport, Katie Barry\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/joic-08-2020-0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nTo analyze the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC, where the Court confronted the issue of whether the SEC can obtain disgorgement in federal district court proceedings.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis paper provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and a summary of the background and opinion in Liu v. SEC. This article then focuses on the practical implications of Liu on SEC disgorgement by considering questions left open by the decision.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe Court in Liu held that the SEC is authorized to seek disgorgement as “equitable relief” as long as it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” But the Court left many unanswered questions, such as whether disgorged funds must always be returned to investors for disgorgement to be a permissible equitable remedy, whether the SEC can obtain joint-and-several disgorgement liability from unrelated co-defendants, what “legitimate expenses” should be deducted in disgorgement calculations, and to what extent the SEC can seek disgorgement in cases when victims are difficult to identify.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nOriginal, practical guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":399186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Investment Compliance\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Investment Compliance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/joic-08-2020-0020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investment Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/joic-08-2020-0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的分析美国最高法院在Liu诉SEC案中判决的影响,该法院在该案中面临SEC能否在联邦地区法院诉讼中获得追缴的问题。设计/方法/方法本文概述了作者之前的工作,分析了法院对SEC拆分的处理,并总结了Liu诉SEC案的背景和意见。然后,本文通过考虑该判决遗留的问题,重点关注Liu案对SEC拆分的实际影响。在刘案中,法院认为,只要“不超过不法行为者的净利润,并且赔偿给受害者”,SEC就有权寻求“衡平法上的救济”。但法院留下了许多未解决的问题,例如,是否必须将被追缴的资金返还给投资者,才能使追缴成为一种允许的衡平法救济;SEC是否可以从不相关的共同被告那里获得连带追缴责任;在追缴计算中应扣除哪些“合法费用”;以及在受害者难以识别的情况下,SEC在多大程度上可以寻求追缴。原创性/价值原创性,由金融服务监管和执法实践方面经验丰富的律师提供实用指导,其中许多人曾在美国证券交易委员会执法部门工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What is new after Liu: unsettled questions surrounding SEC disgorgement
Purpose To analyze the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC, where the Court confronted the issue of whether the SEC can obtain disgorgement in federal district court proceedings. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and a summary of the background and opinion in Liu v. SEC. This article then focuses on the practical implications of Liu on SEC disgorgement by considering questions left open by the decision. Findings The Court in Liu held that the SEC is authorized to seek disgorgement as “equitable relief” as long as it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” But the Court left many unanswered questions, such as whether disgorged funds must always be returned to investors for disgorgement to be a permissible equitable remedy, whether the SEC can obtain joint-and-several disgorgement liability from unrelated co-defendants, what “legitimate expenses” should be deducted in disgorgement calculations, and to what extent the SEC can seek disgorgement in cases when victims are difficult to identify. Originality/value Original, practical guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信