⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears consolidated appeals from a civil securities case involving sales of investments in Elite Aerospace Group. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused people involved in the offerings of concealing sales commissions and understating how much investors' money went toward offering costs. Its complaint describes commissions of fifteen percent on new investments, without corresponding disclosure to investors. A jury later found securities-law violations, and five defendants are challenging the resulting judgments. Much of the argument concerns evidence from an earlier SEC enforcement case involving some of the participants. That earlier matter ended in settlement. The appellants contend that letting the jury hear about it unfairly tainted this trial. The SEC will defend its use to explain the participants' relationship and knowledge, rather than to prove that they committed the earlier alleged violations. Rule four-oh-three allows a court to exclude relevant evidence when its value in proving a point is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice. That means a risk of deciding the case on an improper basis, not merely evidence that hurts one side. A limiting instruction tells jurors the particular purpose for which they may use evidence. Whether the court properly weighed those risks, and whether an instruction was enough, are central questions here. The appeal also concerns financial remedies imposed after the jury verdict. Disgorgement seeks repayment of wrongful profits; it is distinct from a civil fine. The judges will consider the appellants' argument that a jury, rather than the judge, should have determined the financial relief. John van Loben Sels will speak first for the five appellants, seeking reversal and a new trial. The SEC will ask the court to uphold the verdict and remedies.

SEC v. Yale, et al. (No. 25-3285) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 23, 2026.