request for disgorgement due to Olins’s good faith belief that the sales were lawful, or, in the alternative, to offset an unspecified amount in recognition of “legitimate work performed” by Olins on behalf of SpatiaLight and his lost investment in said company. (See Opp. at 19-20.) As the Court noted in its prior Order, however, “an analysis of disgorgement does not necessarily include such additional considerations” as scienter. (See Order at 3.) Further, the authorities on which Olins relies are distinguishable as they stand for the proposition that a defendant need not disgorge what he legitimately earns, and Olins provides no evidence that the proceeds from the subject sales of securities resulted from anything other than unlawful activity. See First Pacific, 142 F.3d at 1192 n. 6 (<HOLDING>). Next, defendants’ request that the Court, in
holding that termination of contracts by offset results in capital gain or loss holding defendants loss of investment inappropriate as offset against illgotten gains holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that investment advisors with authority to make investment decisions for their clients have standing