Search results

1 – 2 of 2
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 29 August 2018

Brad Karp, Andrew Ehrlich, Lorin Reisner, Audra Soloway, Richard Tarlowe, Maia Lichtenstein and Peter Vizcarrondo

This paper aims to explain the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Kokesh v. SEC, which limited the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) ability to seek the remedy of…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to explain the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Kokesh v. SEC, which limited the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) ability to seek the remedy of disgorgement and to examine how lower courts have applied the ruling to other types of equitable relief that that the SEC commonly pursues.

Design/methodology/approach

This study explains why the Supreme Court in Kokesh ruled that disgorgement is a “penalty” and that the five-year limitations period therefore was applicable to actions seeking disgorgement; discusses a footnote in Kokesh that left open the question of whether the SEC has the power to pursue disgorgement at all; and reviews four recent cases that grapple with the application of Kokesh to injunctions and lifetime bars.

Findings

Lower courts and the SEC have not settled on how Kokesh might impact equitable remedies commonly pursued by the SEC, but recent cases indicate that the effect of Kokesh may be broader than its narrow holding suggests.

Originality/value

Practical guidance from experienced white collar and regulatory defense lawyers that consolidates several recent developments in one piece.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 19 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 21 September 2015

Brad Barber and Bronwen Lichtenstein

U.S. health policy promotes HIV testing and linkage to care (test-and-treat) with an emphasis on high risk groups such as convicted offenders. We sought to identify…

Abstract

Purpose

U.S. health policy promotes HIV testing and linkage to care (test-and-treat) with an emphasis on high risk groups such as convicted offenders. We sought to identify whether or not laws for mandatory HIV disclosure to sexual partners are a barrier to HIV testing among offenders under community supervision.

Methodology/approach

A total of 197 probationers and parolees were surveyed in a closed/item-open-ended item methodology on two reporting days in Alabama. Three main questions were asked: (1) What do offenders know about HIV? (2) What do they know about the law? (3) Do they support mandatory disclosure and HIV testing? Data for the quantitative items were analyzed with SPSS and matched with open-ended responses for explanatory purposes.

Findings

Testing and criminalization of non-disclosure were fully supported as key elements of HIV prevention. This support was framed by conceptions of HIV as a killer disease, of people with HIV as potential murderers, and by low self-awareness of HIV risk.

Social implications

While the study involved only a single group of convicted offenders in a southern state, the results suggest that disclosure laws legitimize HIV stigma and undermine test-and-treat strategies among communities at risk.

Originality/value

The research is the first of its kind to investigate possible links between HIV criminalization and barriers to HIV prevention and care among convicted offenders.

Details

Education, Social Factors, and Health Beliefs in Health and Health Care Services
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78560-367-9

Keywords

1 – 2 of 2