Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subscribe
SEC v. Team Resources Incorporated, et al, No. 18-10931 (5th Cir. 2020)Annotate this Case
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 5, 2019.
Case: 18-10931 Document: 00515526694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 13, 2020 No. 18-10931 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Team Resources, Incorporated; Fossil Energy Corporation; Kevin A. Boyles, Defendants—Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15-CV-1045 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before King, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Our previous decision in this appeal, see SEC v. Team Resources, Inc., 942 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2019), has been vacated and remanded by the Supreme * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 18-10931 Document: 00515526694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2020 No. 18-10931 Court “for further consideration in light of Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. ---[, 140 S. Ct. 1936] (2020).” Team Resources, Inc. v. SEC, No. 19-978, 2020 WL 3578673, at *1 (U.S. July 2, 2020). As relevant here, Liu held “that a disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under [15 U.S.C.] § 78u(d)(5).” 140 S. Ct. at 1940. Liu also discussed various “principles that may guide the lower courts’ assessment” of the amount of disgorgement that may be lawfully awarded in particular cases. Id. at 1947; see also id. at 1947– 50. In this case, the district court did not have the benefit of Liu’s guidance when it determined the amount of disgorgement. Application of Liu to the facts of this case should be left in the first instance to the district court’s sound judgment. We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Liu. 2