Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On March 5, a panel of the Tenth Circuit lowered former New Mexico investment advisor Charles Kokesh's disgorgement judgment to one-seventh of its initial $35 million. The Tenth Circuit's ruling comes on the heels of Kokesh's 2017 U.S. Supreme Court victory, in which the High Court greatly reduced the SEC's power to disgorge ill-gotten gains.
A federal jury previously found Kokesh guilty of misappropriating money from four business-development companies from 1995 through July 2007. Following the trial, Kokesh was ordered to pay a $2.4 million penalty and a $35 million disgorgement. Due to the five-year statute of limitations period imposed by Section 2462 of the U.S. Code, which applies to any “civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture,” the penalty only applied to misappropriations committed by Kokesh between 2005 and 2009, when the SEC brought suit. The disgorgement, however, took into account every misappropriation committed by Kokesh since 1995. Kokesh appealed, arguing that the disgorgement order disregarded the five-year statute of limitations.
In a June 2017 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Kokesh, holding that the disgorgement constituted a penalty and was therefore subject to the statute of limitations. See, Kokesh v. SEC, No. 16-529. Writing for the Court, Justice Sonya Sotomayor reasoned that the disgorgement “bears all the hallmarks of a penalty: it is imposed as a consequence of violating a public law and it is intended to deter, not to compensate.” The SEC had argued that disgorgement was neither a penalty nor restitution. Justice Sotomayor disagreed, stating that “disgorgement does not restore the status quo; it leaves the defendant worse off.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?