The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
I always laugh when a court of appeals expresses relief that they don't have to
| German pumo | 06/04/26 |
| CapTTTainFalcon | 06/04/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 4th, 2026 11:35 AM Author: German pumo clarify an important point of law. There's a big unclear issue in my circuit that lawyers have been waiting to be clarified for years. An appellate panel just had the issue teed up and they noted in their opinion something to the effect of "this is clearly a thorny issue which is of considerable importance for this circuit, but thankfully there is a clearer basis for affirming the district court's ruling, so we don't need to decide it."
Yeah, not like practicing lawyers need to know what the law is, you lazy and timid fucks. |
Date: June 4th, 2026 11:59 AM Author: CapTTTainFalcon In reaching that holding [in Kokesh], though, we expressed no “opinion on whether courts possess authority to order disgorgement in SEC enforcement proceedings” to begin with, nor did we express any “opinion . . . on whether courts have properly applied disgorgement principles in this con-text.” Id., at 461, n. 3.
As much as it resolved, Liu left some questions unan-swered. We did not decide whether the SEC may seek dis-gorgement when it is “infeasible to distribute the collected funds to investors.” Id., at 89. Nor did we decide what showing the Commission might have to make to prove “[in]feasibility.” Ibid., n. 5. (Those questions remain for another day yet, as they have no bearing on this case.) Liu also left unaddressed what statute of limitations might ap-ply to disgorgement actions under §78u(d)(5). ... So the question of what limitations period, if any, might attach to SEC disgorgement actions once again became uncertain. |