• Best CPA Networks
  • Best Cost-Per-Sale Affiliate Networks
  • Best Pay-Per-Call Networks
  • mThink Digital
  • Thought Leadership
    • White Papers
  • About
    • Content Marketing
    • Content Strategy
      • Web Content
      • Social Media Strategy
      • Webinars & Video
      • Thought Leadership
    • Performance Marketing
    • Portfolio
      • Revenue Performance
      • Accenture
      • Microsoft
      • Java Detour
      • Our Process
    • Contact Us

mThink

Blue Book Logo

BlueBook Logo

The Trusted Name in Performance Marketing

ROS Leaderboard

  • Home
  • Blue Book
    • About Blue Book
    • Blue Ribbon Panel
    • Interviews
    • Research Methodology
    • Back Issues
    • Advertising
      • Website Creative Specifications
      • Newsletter Creative Specifications
  • Best CPA Networks
  • Best Cost-Per-Sale Affiliate Networks
  • Best Pay-Per-Call Networks
  • Best European CPA Networks
  • Best CPA Networks for Affiliates
  • Best CPA Networks for Advertisers

Breaking News: Supreme Court Limits Regulatory Right to Disgorgement in Judicial Enforcement Actions

June 25, 2020 by Richard B. Newman

On June 22, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission.  In doing so, the Court rejected the Liu petitioners’ argument that the SEC is not entitled to “equitable” disgorgement of profits from unlawful activity in securities litigation, but provided for deduction of legitimate expenses.

The opinion was authored by Justice Sotomayor for a virtually unanimous bench.  Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, stating that disgorgement should be unavailable as a remedy because it “is not a traditional equitable remedy.”

As stated by Sotomayor, a disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is permissible equitable relief.

Whether it is called restitution, an accounting or disgorgement, the equitable remedy that deprives wrongdoers of their net profits from unlawful activity reflects both the foundational principle that “it would be inequitable that [a wrongdoer] should make a profit out of his own wrong,” and the countervailing equitable principle that the wrongdoer should not be punished by “pay[ing] more than a fair compensation to the person wronged.”

The Court also notes that courts have also generally awarded profits-based remedies against individuals or partners engaged in concerted wrongdoing, not against multiple wrongdoers under a joint and several liability theory.

The Court states that courts have occasionally awarded disgorgement in ways that test the bounds of equity practice.  It opines that the Liu petitioners claim that disgorgement is necessarily a penalty under Kokesh, and thus not available at equity.

But, Kokesh expressly declined to reach that question, the Court stated.

The Liu petitioners claim that the disgorgement awarded against them crosses the bounds of traditional equity practice by failing to return funds to victims, imposing joint and several liability, and declining to deduct business expenses from the award.  Because the parties did not fully brief these narrower questions, the Court does not decide them.  However, certain principles touched upon by the Court are intended to guide the lower courts’ assessment of these arguments on remand.

The opinion provides ammunition to defendants and recipients of civil investigative demands to challenge the agency’s authority to obtain equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.  It will be interesting to see if and how the Supreme Court addresses these issues in the three petitions pending before it that challenge the FTC’s disgorgement powers,

From a consumer protection standpoint, FTC practice attorneys may now be better armed to defend overzealous judicial enforcement actions and civil investigative demands (CIDs).

Richard B. Newman is an advertising practices attorney at Hinch Newman LLP.  Follow him on National Law Review @ FTC Defense Lawyer and on Twitter @ FTC Defense Lawyer.

Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May be considered attorney advertising.

 

Related posts:

  1. Court Enforces TCPA Clickwrap Agreement in a Victory for Marketers One of the key issues in any Telephone Consumer Protection...
  2. FTC’s Assault on Paid-For Rankings, Ratings and Review Websites Continues The FTC’s Endorsement Guides provide that if there is a...
  3. Court Addresses Unconstitutional TCPA Damages and Who Can be Held Liable A company that managed the ownership rights of a film...
  4. Federal Court Holds TCPA Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege ATDS In Bader v. Navient Solutions, LLC (N.D. Ill. June 14,...

Filed Under: Blue Book, Revenue, Revenue Blog Tagged With: Disgorgement, Ftc attorney, FTC Compliance, Sotomayor, Supreme Court

Search

ROS Col 2 Top

ROS Col 2 Mid

ROS Col 2 Low

Subscribe to our newsletter!

* indicates required

ROS Col 2 – 4 Misc

ROS Col 2 – 5 Misc

ROS Col 2 – 6 Misc

Recent Posts

  • How Financial Marketers Can Boost New Customer Growth on an Affiliate Model
  • Crypto Griftonomics And Influencers In Affiliate Marketing
  • Don’t forget about click-to-call: the most underrated vertical for social media traffic
  • Why The Speed of Relevance Can Help You Win
  • Why Should Marketers Invest In Pay Per Call?
  • CFPB Issues Warning About Contractual Gag Clauses and Consumer Reviews
  • New Blue Book Top 20 CPS Affiliate Network Results
  • FTC Rules With Civil Monetary Penalties for Deceptive Earnings Claims and Targeted Marketing May Be Forthcoming
  • New Blue Book Results: Top 20 CPA Affiliate Networks For 2022
  • FTC Rules With Civil Monetary Penalties for Deceptive Earnings Claims and Targeted Marketing May Be Forthcoming
  • Top 4 Ways To Make Your Call Campaigns More Successful
  • Perform[cb]’s New Mobile App For Partners Is A Game Changer
  • Shaping the Perfect Matchmaker for Content Creators
  • Removing Barriers for Influencers and Content Creators
  • 8 Easy Ways To Refresh An Email Campaign

About mThink

mThink is a specialist digital marketing company based in San Francisco. We focus on media buying, Facebook marketing, direct response, social and mobile. In addition mThink produces the annual Blue Book Rankings of major performance marketing networks. Read More »

Baseboard

Copyright ©2022 · mThink. All rights reserved.
3053 Fillmore Street, Suite 325 | (415) 787-0250
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy