Talk:Disgorgement
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
copyvio[edit]
This edit [1] by 195.149.215.221 is copied verbatim from [2]. This seems to be explicitly forbidden by [3]. I have removed the offending text.
Disagree[edit]
It says, "Disgorgement is a remedy and not a punishment." I diagree. To me it sounds like something that fully qualifies as punishment. Or is it "a remedy and not a punishment" because, unlike a true punishment where someone is tried, convicted, and sentenced, disgorgement is a remedy in that it merely rights a wrong, putting wealth back in the hands of those to whom it rightly belongs? Besides, the equivalent Swedish Wikipedia article, "Förverkande", places it under the category "Straffrätt" meaning, I believe, "Punishment law".--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- In the Swedish legal system it may be that "forfeiture" is a punishment, however in common law systems (or at least that of England & Wales) disgorgement is aimed not at punishing the 'offender' but reversing unjust enrichment. Incidentally, this is why the box at the top of the article saying it can be expanded from the Swedish wikipedia article is almost certainly incorrect and ought not to be there. In any case, what the courts are trying to do with disgorgement is to prevent the party that has been unjustly enriched from continuing to be unjustly enriched. The aim is not so much to punish them by taking their unjustly gained wealth away (arguably it's not much of a punishment to take away something they never, legally speaking, had any claim to anyway), but to restore the situation to the way it was before the unjust enrichment occurred. 31.205.1.76 (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Requested move 15 December 2015[edit]
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus below, pending G6 delete. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Disgorgement (law) → Disgorgement – This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "disgorgement". -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - only topic with this actual title, and even if there were others, there are none that can challenge the primacy of the highly notable legal concept. bd2412 T 04:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, looking at the Disgorge disambiguation page this is clearly the primary topic of "disgorgement". sst✈(discuss) 06:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. The root verb "disgorge" may be ambiguous, but the derived noun "disgorgement" has a clear primary topic: out of the items on the dab page, the bands clearly can't be called "disgorgement" at all, and the two others (the fish and wine-related meanings) are only occasionally the intended meaning (~1% of the time [4][5][6]) when you encounter the word "disgorgement" in print.. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - this is clearly the primary topic. Neutralitytalk 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.