to properly disclose information, the Appellants would have obtained their shares of Musicland stock under different and presumably more expensive market conditions. Had, for example, Teo disclosed his true beneficial ownership and his plans to change Musicland’s Board or take Musicland private, Musicland’s stock price may well have increased. To the extent the Majority relies on such reasoning, I agree with them that the SEC met its initial burden to establish that a plausible relationship exists between the Appellants’ securities violations and the profits gained. But disgorgement is not an all-or-nothing matter. Again, only the extent of profits with a causal connection to the wrongdoing — i.e., the ill-gotten gains — are subject to disgorgement. See MacDonald, 699 F.2d at 55 (<HOLDING>). Thus, once the SEC has made the initial
holding that a valid final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action holding that not all subsequent profits are subject to disgorgement only those based upon the price of the stock a reasonable time after public dissemination of the inside information holding that mcgrawhill is the only source of the information contained in the instructions and formulas for the inside ferc price index holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract holding that disgorgement was appropriate only as to the profits made prior to the time insider information was made public