1. This case presents substantial and important questions of federal securities law regarding, among other things,: (i) whether equitable principles as held by this Court in Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020) instruct that assets unilaterally seized by the alleged victim for the same alleged conduct should offset disgorgement in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) judgment and (ii) whether the district court's nominee analysis on three discrete relief defendant assets was legally sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the nominee doctrine such that these three assets can be disgorged as equitably belonging to the Defendant and used for the satisfaction of Defendant's judgment.

2. Below, the Second Circuit held that assets unilaterally seized by the alleged victim, despite holding significant value and seized for the same alleged conduct as in this case, could not offset disgorgement, and that even one finding made by the district court was legally sufficient to deem three relief defendant assets as nominees and equitably owned by the Defendant. This (i) transformed disgorgement into a punitive remedy, conflicting with this Court's holding in Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020), and (ii) created a circuit split on the legal sufficiency required to satisfy the nominee doctrine.

Question not identified.