Forcing Defendants to Disgorge What They Never Possessed

, New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments

Wilmer Hale's Peter K. Vigeland, Douglas Davison and Chris Johnstone critique the Second Circuit's recent opinion affirming the imposition of an order that the defendant must disgorge over $7 million in profits from an insider trading scheme that only benefited the fund he managed, and question whether the SEC, in the exercise of its considerable discretion, should seek disgorgement and pre-judgment interest beyond the benefit a particular defendant obtained from the illegal scheme.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Originally appeared in print as Should a Defendant Be Forced to Disgorge What He Never Possessed?

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202652463315

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.