In Liu v. SEC, the U.S. Supreme Court squarely placed SEC disgorgement in the category of equitable relief, explaining that limitations on such relief under traditional equity principles also applied to disgorgement. Uncertainty about the basis for the SEC’s disgorgement authority arose, however, when Congress added an express statutory disgorgement remedy in response to Liu. The new issue that the Court confronted in Sripetch v. SEC was whether, to obtain disgorgement, the SEC had to show that the victims of the misconduct suffered pecuniary harm. In attempting to answer that question, the parties debated the impact of the new statutory disgorgement remedy. Assuming that disgorgement remained an equitable remedy, the Court concluded that traditional equity principles did not require the SEC to show pecuniary loss or harm before pursuing disgorgement. That decision has important implications for private fund managers and other firms that become targets of SEC enforcement. Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of Sripetch is Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion, which all but demanded that the Court address whether SEC disgorgement was legal or equitable. The answer to that question could have far-reaching implications, including whether defendants are entitled to a jury trial on claims of disgorgement. In a guest article, MoloLamken partner Eric R. Nitz summarizes the Court’s decision and details some of its implications for private fund managers. For coverage of another Court ruling, see “Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act” (Jul. 9, 2026).