SEC profit repayments

1. Whether a court of appeals may affirm a civil disgorgement award as "net profits" under Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), when the figure and the label originated in the Commission's proposed order, no court analyzed the defendant's gains, and the court of appeals validated the figure by citing a criminal forfeiture calculated on "amount of loss" — where this Court's decision in Sripetch v. SEC, No. 25-466 (June 4, 2026), issued three weeks after the panel ruling and five days before the denial of rehearing en banc, holds that the award "is not measured by [the plaintiff s] loss but by the defendant's gain," and the court of appeals addressed neither. 2. Whether collateral estoppel may attach to a criminal conviction when preserved claims of structural error — judicial bias and an undisclosed prosecutorial conflict — have never been adjudicated on the merits under the governing constitutional standards, the only examination having been presided over by the same judge and controlled by the same prosecutor after his formal disqualification as a necessary fact witness. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980); Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955); Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987). 3. Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may invoke collateral estoppel from a criminal conviction resting on its own analyst's testimony, presented as false, when the disqualified prosecutor who communicated with that analyst blocked examination of both the communications and the falsity and authored the finding that the testimony was true. See Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959).