MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, SEC v. SIPC
July 3, 2012
By U.S. District Judge ROBERT L. WILKINS
The Court is truly sympathetic to the plight of the SGC clients who purchased the SIBL CDs and now find themselves searching desperately for relief. Robert Allen Stanford's 110 year sentence may bring some measure of justice to the SGC clients, but it will not make them financially whole. But this Court has a duty to apply the SIPA statute as written by Congress, and, as other courts have done, this Court also has a duty to construe narrowly the "customer" definition of the statute. For the foregoing reasons, the SEC has failed to meet its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, of proving that SIPC has "refus[ed] . . . to commit its funds or otherwise to act for the protection of customers of any member of SIPC." Indeed, because the issue turns on uncontested facts and an interpretation of law10, the Court holds that the SEC would have failed to meet even the lesser burden of probable cause. The Application of the SEC is therefore denied. An Order accompanies this Memorandum.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission to compel Respondent, Securities
Investor Protection Corporation, to commence a liquidation proceeding (Docket No. 1), the oppositions and replies
thereto, and oral argument, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED, that:
The Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission is DENIED; and it is, FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
dismissed with prejudice.
READER DISCUSSION
SIVG reserves the right to delete comments that are off-topic or offensive. Excessively long comments may be moderated as well. SIVG cannot facilitate requests to remove comments or explain individual moderation decisions. The comments posted here, express only the views of their authors and not the administrators/moderators from SIVG; for that reason SIVG won't be held responsible for those contents
Showing 0 comments...