C.F.R. » Title 17 » CHAPTER II—SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION › PART 201—RULES OF PRACTICE › Subpart F—Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans

17 C.F.R. § 201.1100

Creation of Fair Fund

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

In any agency process initiated by an order instituting proceedings in which the Commission or the hearing officer issues an order requiring the payment of disgorgement by a respondent and also assessing a civil money penalty against that respondent, the Commission or the hearing officer may order that the amount of disgorgement and of the civil penalty, together with any funds received pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 7246(b), be used to create a fund for the benefit of investors who were harmed by the violation.

[70 FR 72570, Dec. 5, 2005]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2023–2024 · leading case: SEC v. Jarkesy
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) scotus “116 (citing 17 CFR § 201.1100 ). Such a penalty by defnition does not “restore the status quo” and can make no pretense of being equitable.”
SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) scotus “116 (citing 17 CFR §201.1100 ). Such a penalty by definition does not “restore the status quo” and can make no pretense of being equita- ble.”
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Michael M. Beck (2023) cacd “100 through 900 or the Commission’s Rules of Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 CFR 201.1100 through 1106, or otherwise, where such trustee, receiver, master, special counsel, or other individual or entity is specifically designated 9 to perform particular functions with…”
U.S Securities and Exchange Commission v. Saw (2023) nysd “100 through 900 or the Commission’s Rules of Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 CFR 201.1100 through 1106, or otherwise, where such trustee, receiver, master, special counsel, or other individual or entity is specifically designated to perform particular functions with respect…”
SEC v. Jarkesy Revisions: 6/27/24 (2024) scotus “116 (citing 17 CFR §201.1100 ). Such a penalty by definition does not “restore the status quo” and can make no pretense of being equita- ble.”
SEC v. Jarkesy Revisions: 6/27/24 (2024) scotus “116 (citing 17 CFR §201.1100 ). Such a penalty by definition does not “restore the status quo” and can make no pretense of being equita- ble.”
SEC v. Jarkesy Revisions: 6/27/24 (2024) scotus “116 (citing 17 CFR §201.1100 ). Such a penalty by definition does not “restore the status quo” and can make no pretense of being equita- ble.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.