Supreme Court Rules for SEC on Disgorgement Awards
In a win for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Sripetch v. SEC, No. 25-466 (June 4, 2026) that an SEC disgorgement award does not require proof of pecuniary loss by investors. The case involved the new statutory disgorgement remedy (in Exchange Act Section 21(d)(7)) that Congress added in 2021, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu, which together curtailed the SEC’s disgorgement remedy by subjecting it to statutory time limits and equitable constraints.
The practical result is that the SEC will have a somewhat easier time obtaining disgorgement awards in future enforcement cases. But the Supreme Court’s decision explicitly left open a number of interesting questions: whether the equitable constraints identified in Liu apply to the new statutory disgorgement remedy (the Court assumed here that they do), whether disgorgement is available when it is infeasible to distribute funds to investors, and whether the Seventh Amendment jury trial right under Jarkesy is implicated by the disgorgement remedy. How the SEC pursues disgorgement awards going forward may implicate all those questions and lead to future litigation. We’ll be watching closely.
Sidley’s Loss-Eaton Making Supreme Court Debut in Saudi Spy Case
Sidley partner Tobias Loss-Eaton is set to argue his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court, representing a former Twitter employee convicted of spying for Saudi Arabia. The case centers on whether federal prosecutors brought an obstruction charge in the proper venue, raising broader constitutional questions about where criminal cases can be tried. Loss-Eaton, who helped bring the case to the Court through Northwestern’s Supreme Court clinic, now prepares to make his debut at the lectern in a closely watched dispute over the limits of federal venue law.