Whether the value of assets unilaterally seized by the alleged victim should be offset against disgorgement, and whether the value of shares returned during transactions where the alleged victims experienced no loss should be offset against disgorgement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED As this Court has recognized, disgorgement in SEC proceedings must stay within “traditional equitable limitations” and remain “within the heartland of equity.” Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936, 1943 (2020). This Court has also recognized that “where findings [of the district court] are infirm because of an erroneous view of the law, a remand is the proper course.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 278, 292 (1982). The questions presented are: 1. Whether this Court’s holding in SEC v. Liu, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020) that disgorgement must remain within equitable limits instructs that (i) the value of assets unilaterally seized by the alleged victim be offset against disgorgement, and (ii) the value of shares returned during two transactions be offset against disgorgement, especially as the alleged victims experienced no loss in those transactions. 2. Whether this Court’s holdings across multiple cases and other circuit court holdings instruct a vacatur and remand on nominee theory on three discrete relief defendant assets as the district court’s findings were based on an erroneous view of the law and were not legally sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the nominee doctrine such that these three assets can be disgorged as equitably belonging to the defendant and used for the satisfaction of defendant’s judgment.