Securities and Exchange Commission v. David E. Lipson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the defendant was entitled to a jury trial because the SEC sought legal relief in the form of penalties, even though the SEC also sought equitable relief
• upholding the district court's discretion to impose a treble civil penalty given the defendant's wealth
• affirming district court’s decision to impose a maximum penalty on CEO who violated securities law, taking into consideration CEO’s wealth ($100 million), the flagrancy of his violation, and his' obduracy
• upholding the imposition of maximum civil penalty in an insider trading case, in part, because defendant “steadfastly maintained his innocence and claimed to be the victim of a government vendetta”
• upholding maximum penalty based in part on defendant’s “net worth of some $100 million”
• “[I]t was for the judge to decide, consistent with the jury’s finding of liability . . . what equitable relief to impose.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).