ChatGPT Image May 22, 2025, 02_53_38 PM.png

Ending Excessive Punishments

ICAN is ensuring that the SEC will no longer go unchallenged when they throw the book at small investors and entrepreneurs for insignificant regulatory infractions.

With unlimited resources, the SEC has increasingly gone after the smallest of regulatory infractions, seeking ruinous monetary judgments or professional bars for often unintentional violations – the equivalent of imposing life sentences for traffic violations. Such actions have a chilling effect on legitimate market activity and discourage new market participation.

We are fighting to stop the agency's practice of turning technical violations into legal nightmares that destroy careers, businesses, and families, giving small investors and entrepreneurs the means to stand up and challenge the predatory regulation-through-litigation approach of the SEC.

Our Work

Litigation

SEC v Rose

The SEC is in federal court asking a judge to enforce a nearly $450,000 order against a retired Texas grandfather — while leaving out the constitutional violations it has committed, the Supreme Court rulings it has ignored, and the fact that it's already been garnishing his Social Security. ICAN filed an opposition to set the record straight.

Lucia v SEC

Ray Lucia's story serves as a stark reminder of what's at stake when regulatory agencies can destroy careers using unconstitutional processes. His 13-year ordeal illustrates the coercive nature of SEC administrative proceedings, which the Supreme Court has now repeatedly criticized—thanks in large part to Ray’s willingness to fight, which paved the way for others to do the same. ICAN is proud to be representing Raymond Lucia in his motion to lift a “forever bar” imposed against him by the SEC.

Due Process Tax

The SEC pursued $8,826 in prejudgment interest from relief defendant Jamie Quick, who was never accused of any wrongdoing, effectively imposing a "due process tax" for exercising her right to defend herself in court.

JD Jordan- SEC v Thurlow

The SEC targeted JD Jordan for alleged technical registration violations despite his good-faith reliance on a legal opinion letter from qualified counsel, highlighting how the agency's performance metrics incentivize pursuing easy cases over substantive ones.

Spitzer v SEC

After 40 years of faithful client service, 74-year-old Paul Spitzer faces financial ruin after the SEC's 18-month silence transformed a limited supervisory settlement into a de facto lifetime industry bar through administrative inaction.

Mona v Microbot Medical

Joseph Mona, a retired grandfather, saw his entire savings and the financial security of his family destroyed after he inadvertently ran afoul of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an antiquated law that has become a cash cow for predatory lawyers acting like “deputy SEC attorneys.”

Eric Cannon: SEC Administrative Proceeding

After pursuing Eric Cannon in federal court for nine years over non-fraud registration violations, the SEC initiated a follow-on administrative proceeding seeking to permanently bar him from the financial industry—a "double jeopardy" that threatens his 30-year career despite no allegations of fraud or investor harm.

SEC v Barry et al.

Three sales agents have spent almost ten years over a registration violation -all because the SEC is trying to erode a past ruling that life settlement products are not securities under Howey, highlighting how the agency forum-shops rejected legal theories to different courts until finding a judge who will rule in its favor.

SEC v Punch TV

Joseph Collins, a Los Angeles entrepreneur, faced a ruinous $1.35 million SEC demand over a self-reported technical violation with no fraud or investor harm, until ICAN secured a complete victory rejecting the SEC's disgorgement attempt and preserving key limits on the agency's powers.

Amicus Briefs & Comment Letters

Powell v. SEC, No. 25-1100 (U.S., April 20th, 2026)

Brief signed by 12 former SEC enforcement officials asks the Supreme Court to review the SEC's so-called "Gag Rule"—the fifty-year-old policy that forces anyone who settles with the agency to agree, for the rest of their life, never to publicly deny the SEC's allegations against them.

Read Now

Sripetch v SEC, No. 25-466 (U.S., March 2, 2026 Brief 1 of 2)

Drawing on the experiences of ICAN clients facing massive disgorgement demands despite no fraud and no investor harm to urge the Supreme Court to impose meaningful limits on the SEC's power to seize funds where no victims have been identified.

Read Now

In the Matter of Rajarengan Rajaratnam (Admin Proc. File No. 3-16245, June 30, 2025)

Encouraging SEC to end "forever bars" against professionals

Read Now

Bartlett v Baasiri, No. 23-568 (U.S., December 28, 2023)

Supporting maximizing investor access to US courts to discourage foreign governments from nationalization and privatization gamesmanship.

Read Now

Sripetch v SEC, No. 25-466 (U.S., March 2, 2026 Brief 2 of 2)

Presenting the perspective of former SEC attorneys who argue that disgorgement untethered from investor harm is a civil penalty in disguise — one that triggers Seventh Amendment jury-trial rights and allows the SEC to bypass the statutory framework Congress built for gain-stripping without victims, complete with the guardrails the agency is now evading.

Read Now

Sripetch v SEC, No. 25-466 (U.S. November 17. 2025)

Urging Supreme Court to Deny SEC's Victimless Disgorgement

Read Now

SEC v. Panuwat, 21-cv-06322 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2023)

Informing the court of the unintended consequences of the SEC's novel "shadow insider trading" theory that would allow companies to keep their competitors' stock prices artificially low.

Read Now

Advocacy

Former SEC Attorneys Ask Supreme Court to End 50-Year "Gag Rule" as Justices Weigh SEC Disgorgement Power in Sripetch

Former SEC Attorneys Ask Supreme Court to End 50-Year "Gag Rule" as Justices Weigh SEC Disgorgement Power in Sripetch Amicus brief filed by ICAN in Powell v. SEC argues the agency charged with stamping out misleading omissions has itself operated "the most sweeping compelled-omission regime in federal regulatory practice."

Why should it cost someone $12 million to tell their side of the story?

In the past several days, ICAN was at the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments in SEC v. Sripetch. We saw one of our own clients' cases—J.D. Jordan's—dismissed on the eve of those arguments. We filed a new amicus brief in Powell v. SEC challenging the SEC's decades-old "Gag Rule." And we saw FINRA formally adopt the reforms to the Pattern Day Trader rule that ICAN had publicly pushed for, with our comment letter cited in the SEC's approval order.

The SEC Violated His Rights, Ignored the Courts, and Misled a Judge. ICAN Is Setting the Record Straight.

What is this costing the rest of us? The SEC is a federal agency funded by American taxpayers, created to protect investors and maintain the integrity of our markets. Cases like these are not that. There are years of agency resources, attorney hours, and taxpayer dollars spent pursuing individuals for technical violations—without fraud, without victims—that erode the confidence in participating in our markets. When financial professionals become familiar with how the SEC

The SEC's Case Was Unconstitutional From the Start. Now It Wants a Federal Court to Enforce Its Order Anyway.

The SEC's Case Was Unconstitutional From the Start. Now It Wants a Federal Court to Enforce Its Order Anyway. ICAN and co-counsel Vartabedian Katz Hester Haynes file opposition challenging the SEC's attempt to enforce a constitutionally tainted order against a Texas retiree who harmed no one

ICAN Paves the Way for Crucial Supreme Court Case

It is worth noting that our Barry case, and our amicus brief, were cited by SCOTUSblog as presenting an even more compelling version of the issue at stake in Sripetch, one that could “amplify the court’s skepticism toward the expanding scope of disgorgement.”

The Supreme Court Told the SEC to Stop. It Didn't. Now the Court Has Another Chance.

The Supreme Court Told the SEC to Stop. It Didn't. Now the Court Has Another Chance. As the Court prepares to rule on the agency's power to take money when no investor was harmed, three cases show how far the SEC has stretched this tool — and why ordinary Americans are paying the price.

2 3 4