appropriate. See Cook v. Avien, Inc., 573 F.2d 685, 695 (1st Cir.1978) (“a federal cause of action will accrue at the time when plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence discovered or should have discovered the fraud of which he complains.”). The Court concludes, therefore, that genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to the tolling of the statute of limitations and will deny Hussey’s motion for summary judgment. Finally, with respect to disgorgement, the First Circuit has already held that it is an equitable remedy not subject to the five-year statute of limitations. Tambone, 550 F.3d at 148. The Court is bound by that decision and, as such, reiterates that the disgorgement claim is not time-barred. United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 150 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). C. Injunctive Relief The S.E.C. seeks an
holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case holding that a trial court is free to make any order or direction in further progress of the case not inconsistent with the decision of the appellate court as to any question not settled by the appellate decision holding in a case still open on direct review that the district court following reversal and remand from the appellate court may consider intervening supreme court decisional law in its consideration of the case holding that the court had appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the case because only the collateral issue of attorneys fees remained to be decided on remand to the bankruptcy court