US Supreme Court Limits the Amount of Fine the SEC Can Impose on Fraudulent Operators

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

The issue was simple, whether the SEC can get an equitable remedy of disgorgement beside remedies available under specific statutory provisions, this was for penalties and injunctive relief. Therefore, the Supreme Court enforced a stricter version of “the punishment must match the crime”. In addition to that, it held that a fair remedy “will lie within the net profits of the activity and not the entire investment”.

Background

Petitioners Charles Liu and Xin Wang were solicited foreign nationals. They invested in the construction of a cancer-treatment centre. Further ahead, an SEC investigation revealed, misappropriation of the funds. This violated the terms of a private offering memorandum. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 15, allows the SEC to punish securities fraud through administrative and civil proceedings. In administrative proceedings, SEC asks for civil penalties and disgorgement. Civil actions provide for civil penalties and fair relief. The SEC brought a civil action against petitioners. They sought disgorgement equal to the full amount petitioners had raised from investors.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Petitioners argued that there had been expenses in conducting the business, and that not all the funds were misappropriated. The disgorgement remedy failed to consider legitimate business expenses. But District Court did not deduct these expenses. In addition to that, it held the petitioners are liable for the full amount. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the same. Another stance was SEC does not always return the entirety of disgorgement proceeds to investors. Thus, there is instead depositing a part of its collections in a fund in the Treasury.

Defendant’s Arguments

The defendant argued based on the principle that it is inequitable that a wrongdoer makes profit out of his wrong. The SEC made a broad argument that “the very fact that it conducted an enforcement action” is enough to show that the relief benefits investors. This was a counter to the money not being returned to the victim. However, this argument did not impress Sotomayor and the rest of the bench.

Court’s Opinion

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the decision for a unanimous bench, joined by all except Justice Clarence Thomas. The Court had to find a delicate balance on the word “equitable”. Thus, fair award should not turn into a penalty or a punitive sanction. Furthermore, it stated that it was fair to limit the liability to net profits only after deducting the legitimate expenses. Therefore, the Court did not accept the joint and several liability theory,  applied in the case. The individuals were to be dealt with following the net profits made from the activity.

The bench rejected imposition of disgorgement liability on a wrongdoer through joint-and-several liability. It runs against the rule in favor of holding defendants liable. Sotomayor rejected the practice of ordering disgorgement of all revenues. The lower Courts followed this practice. There were records showing expenses to third parties for such items as leases and cancer-treatment equipment. The award did not include the aforementioned expenses.

Court’s Decision

The disgorgement award does not have to exceed the wrongdoer’s net profits. Thus, the amount awarded to the victims was equitable relief.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -