Securities & Exchange Commission v. Resnick

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that questions surrounding improper admission of evidence in underlying criminal proceeding were “appellate issues for the Second Circuit to address”
• noting that courts have “broad discretion in determining whether to award disgorgement and in what amount”
• explaining that the fact that the defendant had “appealed his criminal conviction d[id] not affect the finality of that judgment for purposes of collateral estoppel”
• denying disgorgement of defendant’s salary when SEC did not show that salary “was causally linked to his unlawful conduct”
• noting a court may include prejudgment interest in the disgorgement amount
• granting disgorgement of bonuses but denying disgorgement of salary when SEC did not show that defendant’s “entire income—not simply his bonuses—was tied to his meeting earnings targets” and when the defendant would have otherwise been paid an annual salary without the fraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).