UNRAVELING THE DISGORGEMENT REGIME

Disgorgement is a legal remedy requiring those who gain from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that conduct. The current state of disgorgement is uncertain, marked by rising tension between limitations in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence and newly enacted statutory authority granted to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) by Congress. Problems emerging from this regime threaten to render adjudication of disgorgement actions ineffective and inconsistent, potentially damaging the integrity of the financial system and eroding public trust in the markets. A comprehensive legislative framework is needed to fill in the gaps; one that firmly delineates the bounds of the disgorgement remedy and also sheds light on its ambiguities. This note paints a full picture of the pertinent legal landscape. In doing so, the intricate knots tying the Supreme Court’s Liu v. SEC opinion to the text of 15 U.S.C. § 78u are unraveled and disgorgement’s duality as equitable and statutory is revealed. In light of the apparent bifurcation, this note proposes additional legislation on the matter in order for litigation to meaningfully move forward under a single theory in future SEC enforcement actions. Setting aside uncertainty on this topic is necessary as disgorgement awards have made up the largest monetary recovery in recent years. With clearer guidance from this legislative framework, the SEC’s time and resources can be more effectively utilized in educating Main Street investors rather than spent on litigation

T.V. v. Grindr

GRINDR’S FRCP 72(b)(2) OBJECTION

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF DOBBS: A CONSTITUTIONAL RECKONING

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization marked a constitutional reckoning, with pervasive and inescapable consequences for many Americans. This article discusses this constitutional reckoning in two senses. First, it was a reckoning with the Court’s own precedent, as it overturned nearly fifty years of precedent on abortion rights. Second, it was a reckoning with the Court’s role in American society, as it raised fundamental questions about the Court’s legitimacy and its ability to protect the rights of minorities. This article begins by outlining a history of abortion rights in the United States, from the early days of the republic to the present day. The Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion; and while it was a controversial decision, it has been challenged ever since. The Dobbs decision, like every other decision made by the Supreme Court, was not immune to the interpretive whims of the individuals who currently inhabit their seats of judgment and power. While the Dobbs decision may be characterized as “flawed” by some, this article seeks to examine the notion that there are no “flawed” or “unflawed” interpretations of the United States Constitution; only ones which we like, or do not like. As such, this decision will have a devastating impact on women’s rights and reproductive health for many years to come. This article concludes by discussing the potential future landscape of abortion rights in the United States. Although the Dobbs decision was a setback for abortion rights, this is nowhere near the end of the fight, considering other available levers outside of the judiciary, including and not limited to legislative action, public education, and grassroots organizing