These are both sensible interpretations. The margin requirements are generally intended to protect broker-dealers from making overly risky loans where they cannot really liquidate the collateral. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that broker-dealers would not have to collect additional margin where they are able immediately to sell securities provided as collateral even where the customer might have been limited in its ability to sell.

The second interpretation really is not…

It is difficult to see the policy logic of this: why provide restitution to someone whose money was lost by a securities law violation, but not to an individual whose car was stolen, or whose house was robbed? The state serves as a general but not a complete or comprehensive insurer against different types of individual misfortunes. Where is the logic of favoring victims of securities fraud over other persons in need?

What is the point of throwing in Rule 2010 on so many enforcement actions? Rule 2010 should be renamed the "Violating Any Other FINRA Rule" rule.

This was not a suit that could be in any way justified on the basis of the statute. As the Court stated, "The key language in each of the provisions at issue [in Dodd-Frank] is 'may,' which is permissive and reflects Congress's grant of discretionary rulemaking authority to the SEC." In short, there is simply no plausible argument that the SEC was required to adopt any rule that had the specific requirements that the plaintiffs favored.

Private litigants may be granted some leeway in…