Search results

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.

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.

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.

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

The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to analyze the legal issues on disgorgement and disgorgement funds in Indonesia, the USA and the UK and to construct the ideal law regarding disgorgement and disgorgement fund.

The type of legal research in this paper is normative legal research. The research approach used is a comparative approach and a legal approach. The legal materials used are all regulations on the disgorgement law and the disgorgement fund that apply in Indonesia, the USA and the UK. The technique of collecting legal materials is done by using library research techniques.

The rapid growth of the capital market in Indonesia still faces various legal issues such as various market manipulations, insider trading and illegal investment management activities. Based on the results of a comparative study, Indonesia does not yet have a calculation mechanism regarding the imposition of disgorgement on violators. Unlike Indonesia, the USA has the rules of practice and rules on fair funds and exchange commissions, and the UK has the decision procedure and penalties manual, which regulates the mechanism for calculating the imposition of disgorgement. Indonesia is solely able to use administrative action in imposing disgorgement, while in the USA and the UK, it can be through courts or direct administrative actions. These legal issues have resulted due to the lack of confidence by international investors and the growth of the investment climate in Indonesia itself.

This study examines the regulation of disgorgement and disgorgement funds in Indonesia, the USA and the UK. However, the focus of research in this paper is limited to legal issues that occurred in Indonesia.

The results of this study may help to construct the ideal regulations on disgorgement and disgorgement funds in various countries and protect the capital market of the investors.

The results of this study are expected to be helpful for the investment climate in various countries, especially developing countries.

The ideal legal construction regarding disgorgement, namely, parties to the mechanism for imposing disgorgement; disgorgement filing mechanism; sanctions in disgorgement; disgorgement fund sources; provider of fundholding accounts; mechanism for calculating disgorgement imposition; disgorgement fund distribution mechanism.

Crisis services personnel are frequently deployed around the globe under highly demanding conditions. This raises the need to better understand the deployment process and more especially, sustainable reintegration after deployment. Despite recent research efforts, the study of the post-deployment stage, more specifically the reintegration process, remains fragmented and limited. To address these limitations, this review aims at (1) describing how reintegration is conceptualised and measured in the existing literature, (2) identifying what dimensions are associated with the reintegration process and (3) identifying what we know about the process of reintegration in terms of timing and phases.

Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol, the authors identified 5,859 documents across several scientific databases published between 1995 and 2021. Based on predefined eligibility criteria, 104 documents were yielded.

Research has primarily focused on descriptive studies of negative individual and interpersonal outcomes after deployment. However, this review indicates that reintegration is dynamic, multi-sector, multidimensional and dual. Each of its phases and dimensions is associated with distinct challenges.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research that investigates reintegration among different crisis services and provides an integrative social-ecological framework that identifies the different dimensions and challenges of this process.