Robert G. Holmes, JR. v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, et al. (503 U.S. 258)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 24, 1992 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 503 U.S. 258 · 112 S. Ct. 1311
- Decided
- March 24, 1992
- Term
- October Term 1991
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) alleges that petitioner Robert G. Holmes, Jr., conspired in a stock-manipulation scheme that disabled two broker-dealers from meeting obligations to customers, thus triggering SIPC’s statutory duty to advance funds to reimburse the customers. The issue is whether SIPC can recover from Holmes under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. §§ 1961-1968 (1988 ed. and Supp. II). We hold that it cannot. ) — i <E The Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA), 84 Stat. 1636, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78aaa-78III, authorized the formation of SIPC, a private nonprofit corporation, § 78ccc(a)(l), of which most broker-dealers registered under § 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, §78o(b), are required to be “members,” § 78ccc(a)(2)(A). Whenever SIPC determines that a member “has failed or is in danger of failing to meet its obligations to customers,” and finds certain other statutory conditions satisfied, it may ask for a “protective decree” in federal district court. § 78eee(a)(3). Once a court finds grounds for granting such a petition, § 78eee(b)(l), it must appoint a trustee charged with liquidating the member’s business, § 78eee(b)(3). After returning all securities registered in specific customers’ names, §§ 78fiff —…
Excerpt of a 33,849-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.