Securities Investor Protection Act

21 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Seymour Vigman
  908 F.2d 1461· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the purchaser-seller standing limitation applicable to Rule 10b-5 claims does not apply to RICO claims based on predicate acts of securities fraud, and that a defendant cannot be insulated from liability for conspiracy by isolating their individual conduct.
• Edward S. Redington for the liquidation of the Bus. of Weis Sec., Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co.
  592 F.2d 617· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that customers of a broker-dealer in liquidation have an implied right of action for damages under Section 17 of the Exchange Act against accountants who prepare false or misleading reports.
• Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago v. Inzer B. Wyatt
  517 F.2d 453· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-24 ·cited 11×
  A general reference of a Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) liquidation proceeding to a bankruptcy judge is valid under the Bankruptcy Act, and the district court's order denying a motion to vacate such a reference is appealable.
• Clay v. Traders Bank OF Kan. City
  708 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the debtors were insolvent when the deed of trust was executed, making it a voidable preference, but remanded for determination of whether a $125,000.00 debt was an antecedent corporate debt.
• Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Seymour Vigman
  803 F.2d 1513· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-07 ·cited 8×
  A broker's unauthorized purchase or sale of securities using a customer's assets can be attributed to the customer, satisfying the purchase-or-sale requirement for an Exchange Act claim, allowing SIPC, as subrogee, to pursue such claims.
• United States v. Brimberry
  779 F.2d 1339· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that venue was proper for bankruptcy fraud charges in the district where the liquidation proceeding was located, and that an immunity agreement did not cover future criminal acts. However, the court reversed one conviction due to an erroneous jury instruction regar
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sec. Nw., Inc.
  573 F.2d 622· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-14 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge holds that a stockholder possesses the statutory right to be heard in Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) proceedings due to the incorporation of Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act. However, on the merits, the district court's decision denying relief to th
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Albert & Maguire Sec. Co., Inc.
  560 F.2d 569· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 6×
  A bank that satisfies a customer's claim against a bankrupt brokerage firm due to its own liability (e.g., signature guaranty) does not acquire the customer's preferred status under SIPA, especially when doing so would be inequitable to other customers.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. First Sec. Co. OF Chicago
  528 F.2d 449· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of compensation to the creditors' committee attorney was an abuse of discretion, and remanded for an award of expenses and fees. The court affirmed the compensation awarded to the receiver's attorneys.
• Rushing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  752 F. Supp. 2d 1254· M.D. Fla.· 2010-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Florida Securities Investor Protection Act (FSIPA) does not provide a cause of action for "holding" securities or for a buyer's agent's improper investment selection advice, but that claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty are not barred by the
• In re Lewellyn & Co., Inc. v. Swiss Am. Sec., Inc.
  929 F.2d 424· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the transfer of Safeguard stock by Lewellyn to SASI was a non-avoidable preference because it constituted a contemporaneous exchange for new value under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1).
• In re Brentwood Sec., Inc. v. Pepperdine Univ.
  925 F.2d 325· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 2×
  Investors are only protected by SIPA if they can prove they entrusted cash or securities to the insolvent broker-dealer; direct payments to third parties or unissued securities do not qualify.
• Camp v. Morey (In Re Gov't Sec. Corp.)
  107 B.R. 1012· S.D. Fla.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The district court held that the bankruptcy court erred in allowing a late claim because the notice provided by the trustee was adequate under SIPA, and the evidence of non-receipt was insufficient and inadmissible hearsay.
• Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Blinder
  962 F.2d 960· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a stockbroker's voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing satisfies the conditions under SIPA for appointing a trustee to liquidate the firm, as the filing itself demonstrates an inability to meet obligations as they mature and potentially impedes customer recove
• Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Goldberg
  893 F.2d 1139· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the wife waived her rights to the corporate stock by her actions and agreements, and is estopped from claiming them, thus affirming the district court's determination.
• Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Ambassador Church Finance/Development Grp., Inc.
  788 F.2d 1208· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) does not authorize the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to pay interest on customer claims, and customers cannot bring a direct action against SIPC for interest.
• Gori v. Sharma
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-18
  The court granted the parties' joint motion to resolve the preliminary injunction, issuing an order based on their agreed-upon terms.
• In re Bell & Beckwith v. McGRAW
  937 F.2d 1104· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-01
  The court held that SIPC may recapture overpayments to customers by including all customer claims in the pro rata calculation of customer property, and then returning to SIPC amounts exceeding a customer's claim up to the amount SIPC advanced.
• In re Bell & Beckwith v. McGRAW
  821 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-16
  Under SIPA, customer trades ordered before the filing date are treated as completed, giving the customer a claim for the purchase price, not the stock itself, regardless of the settlement date.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Guar. Bond & Sec. Corp.
  496 F.2d 145· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-23
  The Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) applies to a broker-dealer that conducted substantial business after the Act's effective date, even if it was in financial difficulty prior to enactment, and a receiver has standing to seek enforcement of SIPA.