Liu v. SEC
United States Supreme Court
591 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1936, 207 L.Ed.2d 401 (2020)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Charles Liu and his wife, Xin Wang (defendants) solicited nearly $27 million from foreign investors under an immigrant-investor program that allows noncitizens who invest in approved businesses to apply for United States residency. Liu sent a private offering to investors pledging the bulk of contributions to building a cancer-treatment center, with a small fee for administrative expenses. But Liu spent nearly $20 million on salaries and marketing and diverted large sums to personal accounts and a company his wife controlled. Small amounts went toward leasing property and buying cancer-treatment equipment. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (plaintiff) brought an enforcement action alleging the couple misappropriated millions, violating the offering terms. The trial court enjoined the couple from the program, imposed civil penalties, and ordered disgorgement equal to the amount raised from investors, less what remained in the project’s corporate accounts. The court found the award reasonably approximated profits connected to the couple’s securities violations and ordered joint and several liability for the full amount. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.