sipc's opposition to amicus filed by the stanford victims coalition, investors committee and the...
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
1/23
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
12-5286
In the United States Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia Circuit
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Appellant,
v.
SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION,
Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 11-678, Judge Robert L. Wilkins)
SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATIONS
OPPOSITION TO THE EXAMINER, OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS
COMMITTEE, AND STANFORD VICTIMS COALITIONS MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE, AND CROSS-MOTION, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE LODGED AMICUS BRIEF
Josephine Wang
General Counsel
SECURITIES INVESTOR
PROTECTION CORPORATION
805 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 800Washington, D.C. 20005
Michael W. McConnell
Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.
Edwin John U
John C. OQuinn
Elizabeth M. Locke
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Counsel for Appellee Securities Investor
Protection Corporation
January 28, 2013
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 1 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
2/23
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 8CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 15
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 2 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
3/23
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CasesAm. Dental Assn v. Shalala,
3 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1993) .................................................................................. 11
Am. Trucking Assns., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,
559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) ..............................................................................10
*Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
402 U.S. 313 (1971) .............................................................................................. 13
*Brookins v. United States,397 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1968) ..................................................................................9
*Christian Legal Soc. v. Martinez,
130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010) ................................................................................. 2, 9, 10
Eldred v. Reno,
239 F.3d 372 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ..............................................................................11
Estate of Parsons v. Palestinian Auth.,
651 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 9
*Goland v. Cent. Intelligence Agency,
607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ................................................................. 1, 8, 9, 10
Ill. Bell Tel. v. FCC,
911 F.2d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ..............................................................................10
In re Brentwood Sec.,
925 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................ 14
In re New Times Sec. Servs., Inc.,
463 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2006) .................................................................................14
*Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks.
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 3 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
4/23
iii
Keller v. Faecher,
44 F. Appx 828 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 9
Lamprecht v. FCC,
958 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ..............................................................................10
*Ministry of Def. of the Islamic Rep. of Iran v. Gould, Inc.,
969 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1992) ......................................................................... 10, 15
*Natl Anti-Hunger Coalition v.
Exec. Comm. of the Presidents Private Sector Survey on Cost Control,
711 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ....................................................................... 9, 10
*Natl Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler,
223 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................ 15
Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village v. Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev.,
980 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1993) ..............................................................................11
Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comn,
125 F.3d 1062 (7th Cir. 1997) ..............................................................................15
SIPC v. Barbour,
421 U.S. 412 (1975) ......................................................................................... 3, 11
Smith v. United States,
343 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1965) ......................................................................... 10, 15
*Unicore, Inc. v. Tenn. Valley Auth.,
768 F.2d 109 (6th Cir. 1985) ..................................................................................9
Vinson v. Wash. Gas Light Co.,
321 U.S. 489 (1944) .............................................................................................. 10
Wyatt v. Terhune,315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 9
Statutes and Rules15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq. ...........................................................................................3
15 U.S.C. 78ccc(c)(1) .............................................................................................4
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 4 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
5/23
iv
15 U.S.C. 78ccc(c)(2) .............................................................................................4
15 U.S.C. 78fff ........................................................................................................ 3
15 U.S.C. 78ggg(b) .......................................................................................... 7, 11
Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) ...................................................................................................9
Other AuthoritiesC.J.S., Stipulations 93 (2000) .................................................................................2
Sept. 16, 2011 SEC Office of Inspector General,
Investigation of Conflict of Interest Arising from Former General Counsels
Participation in Madoff-Related Matters ...............................................................5
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 5 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
6/23
v
GLOSSARY
Amicus Br. Jan. 18, 2013 Lodged Amicus Br. of the Court-
Appointed Examiner, the Official Stanford Investors
Committee, and the Stanford Victims Coalition, No.
12-5286 (D.C. Cir.)
CD Certificate of Deposit
Receivership Court The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division
Feb. 9 Op. Feb. 9, 2012 Mem. Op., SEC v. SIPC, No. 1:11-mc-
00678-RLW [Dkt. 21] (D.D.C.)
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission
SEC App. Dec. 12, 2012 SEC App., SEC v. SIPC, No. 1:11-mc-
00678-RLW [Dkt. 1] (D.D.C.)
SGC Stanford Group Company
SIBL Stanford International Bank Ltd.
SIC Stanford Investors Committee
SIPA Securities Investor Protection Act
SIPC Securities Investor Protection Corporation
SVC Stanford Victims Coalition
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 6 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
7/23
1
INTRODUCTION
This Court should deny the putative amicis motion for leave to file a brief
or alternatively, at a minimum, strike much of their proposed brief under the
straightforward principle that the record before an appellate court is limited to that
before the district court. Courts of appeals, after all, are meant to decide whether
the lower courts decision was correct based on the facts and record in the
proceedings below. As this Circuit and others have recognized, [a]n appellate
court has no fact-finding function in its own right, which means that it is neither
necessary nor appropriate for it to receive new evidence. Goland v. Cent.
Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (per curiam).
The putative amicis proposed brief ignores this settled rule and seeks to
introduce alleged facts from otherproceedings in otherjurisdictions to which the
Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) was never a party, and then
use those supposed findings to alter the record that was actually before the
district court in this case. The amici themselves admit to this tactic, stating that
they seek to present supposed findings and rulings from a receivership
proceeding in Texas and the appeal from that proceeding that purportedly
contradict many of the facts upon which the district court apparently relied.
Jan. 18, 2006 Lodged Amicus Br. of Examiner, SIC & SVC, No. 12-5286, at 6
(D.C. Cir.) (Amicus Br.). Literally every page of the amicis proposed brief
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 7 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
8/23
2
refers to findings that are not part of the record below and have no collateral
estoppel effect on SIPC. The amici even attempt to suggest how they would have
re-written the factual stipulations that SIPC and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC)the actual litigants in this casereached and presented in
framing the issues for the district court. See Amicus Br. 12.
All of this underscores why the putative amicis motion for leave should be
rejected. Simply put, an amicus brief is not a proper vehicle for introducing
supposed evidence beyond the record, especially when the Supreme Court itself
has recognized that factual stipulations are binding and conclusive and that not
even parties may properly suggest, on appeal, that the facts were other than as
stipulated or that any material fact was omitted. Christian Legal Soc. v. Martinez,
130 S. Ct. 2971, 2983 (2010) (quoting C.J.S., Stipulations 93 (2000)). Since the
putative amici do nothing more, this Court should deny their motion for leave to
appear, or alternatively, at the very least, strike those aspects of their proposed
brief that go beyond the record in this case.
BACKGROUND
This appeal stems from the SECs efforts to compel SIPC to initiate a
liquidation proceeding for purchasers of offshore bank CDs that were not (nor
were they supposed to be) in the custody of a SIPC-member brokerage firm.
Instead, the CDs were issued by, and purchased from, an Antiguan bank (Stanford
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 8 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
9/23
3
International Bank Ltd., or SIBL)and were delivered to the purchasers or their
designees, not held by a SIPC-member brokerage.
SIPC is a non-profit membership corporation created in 1970 by the
Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq., for the
purpose, inter alia, of providing financial relief to the customers of failing broker-
dealers with whom they had left cash or securities on deposit. SIPC v. Barbour,
421 U.S. 412, 413 (1975). To fulfill this function, the statute authorizes SIPC to
impose assessments on SIPC-member brokerage firms in order to administer the
liquidation of failing members and compensate qualified customers if cash or
securities in the custody of those members goes missing (subject to various
limitations prescribed by statute). See, e.g.,15 U.S.C. 78fff, 78fff-3(a).
In recent years, SIPC has initiated the liquidations of Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, MF Global, Inc. and other member
brokerage firms within one to three daysand, in the case of MF Global, within
hours once SIPC determined that there were customers in need of protection
under SIPA. In its more than 300 liquidation proceedings, this is the first time that
SIPC has concluded that the statute did not authorize a liquidation requested by the
SEC. SIPC is governed by a seven-member Board of Directors, five of whom are
appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, one
of whom is a designated representative from the Department of the Treasury, and
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 9 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
10/23
4
one of whom is a designated representative from the Federal Reserve Board. Id.
78ccc(c)(1), (2).
In early 2009, the SEC filed an enforcement action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against SIBL and Stanford Group
Company (SGC), among others, in connection with the widely publicized Allen
Stanford fraud. At the SECs request, that court also appointed a receiver to
oversee the assets of the defendants (and hence the putative amici refer to the
Northern District of Texas as the Receivership Court).
Because SGC was a SIPC-member brokerage firm, the SECs receiver asked
SIPC whether SGC clients who had made investments in SIBLs Antiguan CDs
would be entitled to protection under SIPA. See Feb. 9, 2012 Mem. Op., SEC v.
SIPC, No. 1:11-mc-00678-RLW [Dkt. 21], at 2-3 (D.D.C.) (Feb. 9 Op.). SIPC
responded shortly thereafter, explaining that SIPA did not apply because the statute
only protects those who have left cash or securities in the custody of a failing
SIPC-member brokerage firm, i.e., SGCwhereas this case concerned the
purchase of offshore bank CDs that were not in the custody of SGC or any other
SIPC-member brokerage. See id. at 3.
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 10 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
11/23
5
The SEC never objected to this conclusion at the time (to the contrary, its
then-General Counsel concluded that SIPA did not apply to the Stanford case).1
Nearly two years later, howeverand only after a United States Senator threatened
to hold up the confirmation of two nominees for SEC Commissioner in light of
these issuesthe SEC suddenly reversed course, issuing a short memorandum that
argued that investors in SIBL CDs should receive SIPA protection. See Feb. 9 Op.
3. Later that year, the SEC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, in what it described as an Application for an order to compel SIPC to
initiate a liquidation proceeding of SGC. The SEC contended that its
memorandum constituted a judicially unreviewable determination that the district
court should enforce with no discovery and no judicial review. See Dec. 12, 2012
SEC App., SEC v. SIPC, No. 1:11-mc-00678-RLW [Dkt. 1] (D.D.C.) (SEC
App.); see also SEC Mem. in Supp. of App., SEC v. SIPC, No. 1:11-mc-00678-
RLW [Dkt. 1], at 12, 30 (D.D.C.) (arguing that the SECs preliminary
determination is not subject to judicial review, and that the regular rules of
civil procedure do not apply).
1
See Sept. 16, 2011 SEC Office of Inspector General,Investigation of Conflict ofInterest Arising from Former General Counsels Participation in Madoff-Related
Matters at 112, available athttp://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/oig-560.pdf (noting that
[t]he Commission began considering the legal question of SIPA coverage for
Stanford investors but its General Counsel concluded that SIPA, the statute, did
not cover the Stanford situation), attached as Ex. 4 to SIPC Oppn, SEC v. SIPC,
No. 1:11-mc-00678-RLW [Dkt. 23] (D.D.C.).
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 11 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
12/23
6
At the district courts request, the SEC and SIPC discussed whether they
could stipulate to certain facts in order to narrow the range of issues in dispute,
including what, if any, discovery should be afforded. The parties agreed that
certain facts were undisputed and accordingly stipulated, among other things, that:
SIBL offered certificates of deposit [] to investors. In order topurchase a SIBL CD, an investor had to open an account with
SIBL. CD investors wrote checks that were deposited into SIBL
accounts and/or filled out or authorized wire transfer requests
asking that money be wired to SIBL for the purpose of opening
their accounts at SIBL and purchasing CDs.
Most SGC investors either received the physical CD certificatesor had them held by an authorized designee, including Stanford
Trust Company. To the extent that some SIBL CD investors did
not receive the physical certificates, the SEC is not relying on that
fact to support its claims in this proceeding.
In the United States, disclosure statements for SIBLs CDs statedthat SIBLs products are not subject to the reporting requirements
of any jurisdiction, nor are they covered by the investor protection
or securities insurance laws of any jurisdiction such as the U.S.Securities Investor Protection Insurance Corporation.
Mar. 5, 2012 Stipulated Facts, SEC v. SIPC, No. 1:11-mc-00678-RLW [Dkt. 30-1],
3-4, 6 (D.D.C.); see also Mar. 8, 2012 Stipulated Facts, SEC v. SIPC, No. 1:11-
mc-00678-RLW [Dkt. 31-1] (D.D.C.).
On July 3, 2012, the district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying the SECs Application. See July 3, 2012 Mem. Op., SEC v. SIPC, No.
1:11-mc-00678-RLW [Dkt. 34] (D.D.C.). After extensive briefing and argument,
the Court concluded that whether analyzed under the SECs asserted probable
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 12 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
13/23
7
cause standard or under a traditional preponderance of the evidence standard, the
SEC did not and could not meet its burden 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, as would be required to compel SIPC to open a liquidation
proceeding under Section 11(a) of SIPA. Id. at 18 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78ggg(b)).
The SEC has appealed.
The Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC), the Stanford Investors Committee
(SIC), and an examiner appointed by the Northern District of Texas in the SECs
enforcement proceeding have moved to file a joint amicus brief in this Court.
Notably, the SVC, an organization that purports to represent investors in SIBL
CDs, provided extensive submissions to the SEC even before the SEC filed its suit
in the district court. See SEC App. 11; see also Jan. 18, 2012 Mot. for Leave to
Appear as Amicus, No. 12-5386, at 7 (D.C. Cir.); May 19, 2010 Letter from SEC
to SVC Counsel, attached as Ex. 23 to SIPC Oppn, SEC v. SIPC, No. 1:11-mc-
00678-RLW [Dkt. 23] (D.D.C.). Similarly, SIC and the examiner were in
consultation with the SEC leading up to the SECs filing of its Section 11(b)
Application and during the pendency of the litigation in the district court. As the
examiner reported to the court overseeing the receivership, he communicate[d]
regularly with the SEC, and served as a liaison between [SIC] and the SEC with
respect to whether Stanford victims should be afforded coverage by the
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 13 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
14/23
8
Securities Investor Protection Corporation. June 29, 2011 Mot. for Approval of
Seventh Int. App. for Payment of Fees, SEC v. Stanford Intl Bank, Ltd., No. 09-
cv-00298 [Dkt. 1386], at 7, 15 (N.D. Tex.); see also Mar. 12, 2012 Mot. for
Approval of Ninth Int. App. for Payment of Fees, SEC v. Stanford Intl Bank, Ltd.,
No. 09-cv-00298 [Dkt. 1542], at 16-17 (N.D. Tex.) (examiner and SIC provide[d]
information supportive of the SECs decision directing SIPC to commence a SIPA
proceeding to the SEC). Indeed, the examiner reviewed the various court filings
made by the SEC and SIPA [i.e., SIPC] in this case and conferred with members
of [SIC] during the pendency of the district court litigation. June 26, 2012 Mot.
for Approval of Tenth Int. App. for Payment of Fees, SEC v. Stanford Intl Bank,
Ltd., No. 09-cv-00298 [Dkt. 1632], at 18 (N.D. Tex.).
Having worked hand-in-glove with the SEC to shape the record starting even
before the SEC filed suit, and having waited to see what the outcome of the
litigation would be, these putative amici now seek to introduce information beyond
the record, in a proposed brief that expressly seeks to contradict many of the
facts before the district court. Amicus Br. 6, 12.
ARGUMENT
The putative amicis motion for leave should be denied given the bedrock
principle that courts of appeals are limited to the record developed in the district
court. Goland, 607 F.2d at 370; see alsoNatl Anti-Hunger Coalition v. Exec.
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 14 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
15/23
9
Comm. of the Presidents Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, 711 F.2d 1071,
1075 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (As we have previously recognized, [a]ppellate review is
ordinarily unaffected by matters not contained in the record. (quoting Goland,
607 F.2d at 370)).2
[F]acts not in the record may not be relied upon in this court,
and a party who admits or stipulates facts is bound by that concession on appeal.
Estate of Parsons v. Palestinian Auth., 651 F.3d 118, 144 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Brown,
J., concurring and dissenting in part); see alsoChristian Legal Soc., 130 S. Ct. at
2983; Unicore, Inc. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 768 F.2d 109, 112 (6th Cir. 1985)
(where parties stipulate to facts, the District Judge was bound and [the court of
appeals] [is] bound by the record); Brookins v. United States, 397 F.2d 261, 262
(5th Cir. 1968) (This appellate court can only take the record as it finds it, and
cannot add thereto, or go behind, beyond, or outside it.). This Court sits to
review the district courts decision on the record before the district court, not a
mishmash derived from different actions involving different legal issues and
2Courts of appeals will sometimes consider new evidence that is properly subject
to judicial notice or when necessary to resolve jurisdictional questions. See, e.g.,
Goland, 607 F.2d at 370 n.7. Those narrow exceptions, however, are irrelevant
here and in no way analogous to the putative amicis request that this Court
consider findings from a different court in a different dispute between different
parties. Nor can these supposed findings be the subject of judicial notice. SeeWyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1114 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (Factual findings in
one case ordinarily are not admissible for their truth in another case through
judicial notice. [A] court may not take judicial notice of findings of fact from a
different case for their truth.); see also Keller v. Faecher, 44 F. Appx 828, 832
(9th Cir. 2002) (unpub) ([A] court may not take judicial notice of a fact that is
subject to reasonable dispute. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b))).
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 15 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
16/23
10
different parties. SeeChristian Legal Soc., 130 S. Ct. at 2983; Goland, 607 F.2d at
370-71;Natl Anti-Hunger Coalition, 711 F.2d at 1075.
In light of this limitation, neither a party nor an amicus may seek to present
new alleged facts on appeal, much less to contradict the facts to which the parties
actually stipulated. To the contrary, courts of appeals commonly reject attempts to
do so. See, e.g.,Am. Trucking Assns., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,
1053 n.11 (9th Cir. 2009) (We decline to consider the amicus brief , which
seeks to raise issues not raised or briefed by the parties, and order it stricken.)
(citation omitted); Ministry of Def. of the Islamic Rep. of Iran v. Gould, Inc., 969
F.2d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 1992) (We decline to go outside the record to consider
new facts submitted by a non-party [in an amicus brief] at this stage of these
proceedings.); Smith v. United States, 343 F.2d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 1965) (The
Court must decline to consider the merits of issues based on new evidence
furnished for the first time on appeal in the form of affidavits presented by the
amicus.). Just as intervenorswho are actually parties to a proceeding, unlike
amicimay join issue only on a matter that has been brought before the court by
another party, Ill. Bell Tel. v. FCC, 911 F.2d 776, 786 (D.C. Cir. 1990), and
cannot expand the proceedings,Lamprecht v. FCC, 958 F.2d 382, 389 (D.C. Cir.
1992), so too with amici. See also Vinson v. Wash. Gas Light Co., 321 U.S. 489,
498 (1944) ([A]n intervenor is admitted to the proceedings as it stands, and in
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 16 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
17/23
11
respect of the pending issues, but is not permitted to enlarge those issues or compel
an alteration of the nature of the proceeding.).3
That principle applies with even greater force in this case, in which the SEC
sued SIPC under Section 11(b) of SIPA, 15 U.S.C. 78ggg(b). As the Supreme
Court held in SIPC v. Barbour, 421 U.S. 412, 425 (1975), Section 11(b) authorizes
the SECand the SEC aloneto challenge SIPCs determination, and does not
authorize participation by individual investors given the proliferation of competing
and conflicting arguments and allegations that would result. The putative amicis
proposed brief threatens exactly the type of disarray that Congress intended to
avoid when it chose to channel such suits exclusively through the SEC.
These straightforward principles doom the putative amicis motion. Their
brief admits on its face that they seek to present findings and rulings from the
Texas receivership that supposedly contradict many of the facts upon which the
district court apparently relied, Amicus Br. 6even though SIPC was never a
party to those proceedings and thus any alleged findings in those proceedings
3Similarly, courts of appeals routinely reject attempts by amici to raise new issues
not advanced below. See, e.g.,Eldred v. Reno, 239 F.3d 372, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
(argument by amicus was rejected by the actual parties to this case and therefore
is not properly before us);Am. Dental Assn v. Shalala, 3 F.3d 445, 448 (D.C. Cir.1993) (We likewise do not address the separate contentions raised by amicus
curiae because they are beyond the scope of the issues raised below by the
appellants.); Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village v. Dept. of Hous. &
Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1049 (5th Cir. 1993) ([A]n amicus curiae generally
cannot expand the scope of an appeal to implicate issues that have not been
presented by the parties to the appeal.).
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 17 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
18/23
12
would have no collateral estoppel effect. Indeed, the brief makes repeated
reference to those findings and rulings as if they were binding (or even relevant),
despite the fact that the amici do not and cannot argue that they are part of the
record in this proceeding, much less that they could possibly have preclusive effect
against SIPC here. See, e.g., id. at 7 ([T]he Receivership Court and the 5th
Circuit have made findings and rulings that largely contradict the facts upon
which the district court relied.); id. at 12 (The district courts treatment of SGC
and SIBL as distinct, separate entities is contradicted by the findings of the
Receivership Court and the 5th Circuit.). Literally every part of the amicis
brief is infected with references to information that goes beyond the record before
the district court. The amici even go so far as to argue how they would have re-
written the parties stipulations. See id. at 12. And even those sections of the brief
that purport to advance legal argumentsthe discussion of the Old Naples and
Primeline cases, for exampledo so by using the facts purportedly found in the
Receivership Court rather than those that the SEC and SIPC recognized to be
relevant to this case and placed in their factual stipulations to the district court.
See, e.g., id. at 20 (The findings of the Receivership Court and the 5th Circuit
establish a number of other parallels [with Old Naples and Primeline]).
Not only do the putative amici rely on evidence outside the district courts
record, they even rely on matters decided after the decision below. Although the
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 18 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
19/23
13
district court dismissed the SECs Application on July 3, 2012, one of the primary
rulings on which the putative amici rely, and which they attach to their lodged
brief, was issued in the receivership proceeding weeks later on July 30, 2012. See
id. at 6 (citing July 30, 2012 Order, In re Stanford Intl Bank, Ltd., No. 3:09-CV-
0721-N [Dkt. 176] (N.D. Tex.)).
None of this provides proper grounds for the putative amicis submission.
The findings that they demand to present involve different proceedings among
different parties in different courtsnone of which even raised, much less reached,
the question in this case of whether SIPC should be compelled to initiate a
liquidation to protect those who invested in offshore bank CDs that were not in the
custody of a SIPC-member brokerage firm. Whatever disagreement the amici may
have with how the SEC chose to frame its case in the district court here, none of
that would support expanding this appeal to encompass matters beyond the district
court recordespecially when (1) the SEC was fully aware of the amicis alleged
facts from their coordination and communication starting even before the SEC
filed suit, see supra at 7-8, and (2) the amici seek to introduce supposed findings
from other proceedings to which SIPC was never a party and that therefore have no
preclusive effect. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S.
313, 330 (1971) (Some litigantsthose who never appeared in a prior action
may not be collaterally estopped without litigating the issue. They have never had
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 19 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
20/23
14
a chance to present their evidence and arguments on the claim. Due process
prohibits estopping them despite one or more existing adjudications of the identical
issue which stand squarely against their position.). Indeed, the SEC began
receiving information from the amici as early as the spring 2010 (if not well
before), and continued to do so before and after eventually filing suit in December
2012. What this shows is that the SEC had the information available to it, and the
amicis disagreement with how the SEC presented its case does not permit them to
ignore the record that was before the district court.
Even taken on their own terms, it would be particularly remarkable to rely
on findings from proceedings to which SIPC was never a party, to conclude that
a foreign bank in Antigua was really one and the same as a U.S. broker-dealer
for purposes of SIPA. This is especially true given that SIBL is unquestionably not
a SIPC member, and that, as the amici admit, investors intended to purchase
these offshore SIBL CDs. Amicus Br. 15 (emphasis added). Likewise, the amicis
recitation of findings that Allen Stanford operated a fraudulent enterprise, id.
at 13, would not affect the analysis of whether SIPA applied, because it is well-
established that the statute does not protect against fraud. See, e.g., In re New
Times Sec. Servs., Inc., 463 F.3d 125, 130 (2d Cir. 2006) (SIPA does not protect
against all cases of alleged dishonesty and fraud.); In re Brentwood Sec., 925 F.2d
325, 330 (9th Cir. 1991) (SIPA protects investors when a broker holding their
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 20 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
21/23
15
assets becomes insolvent. It does not comprehensively protect investors from the
risk that some deals will go bad or that some securities issuers will behave
dishonestly.).
Against this backdrop, the amicis proposed brief fails to offer any
permissible perspective, or information, that can assist the court of appeals
beyond what the parties are able to do. Natl Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler,
223 F.3d 615, 617 (7th Cir. 2000); see alsoMinistry of Def. of the Islamic Rep. of
Iran, 969 F.2d at 773; Smith, 343 F.2d at 541; cf. Ryan v. Commodity Futures
Trading Comn, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997) (opinion of Posner, J.) (We
are not helped by an amicus curiaes expression of a strongly held view about the
weight of the evidence, but by being pointed to considerations germane to our
decision of the appeal.). Whether to permit a nonparty to submit a brief, as
amicus curiae, is, with immaterial exceptions, a matter of judicial grace. Natl
Org. for Women, Inc., 223 F.3d at 616. The amici cannot meet that standard based
on a brief that rests entirely on matters beyond the record.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny the putative amicis
motion for leave, or alternatively strike the portions of their proposed brief that go
beyond the record in this proceeding.
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 21 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
22/23
16
Dated: January 28, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
s/Michael W. McConnell
Michael W. McConnellEugene F. Assaf, P.C.
Edwin John U
John C. OQuinn
Elizabeth M. Locke
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 879-5000
Fax: (202) [email protected]
Josephine Wang
General Counsel
SECURITIES INVESTOR
PROTECTION CORPORATION
805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 371-8300
Fax: (202) 371-6728
Attorneys for Securities Investor
Protection Corporation
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 22 of 23
-
7/29/2019 SIPC's Opposition to Amicus filed by the Stanford Victims Coalition, Investors Committee and the Examiner--Filed J
23/23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 28th day of January, 2013, I served the foregoing
briefas follows:
1. By ECF on the following:
Michael Post
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street NE
Washington, DC 20549
(202) 551-4481
John HeffnerStrasburger & Price, LLP
1700 K Street N.W., Suite 640
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 742-8600
Robertson Park
Murphy & McGonigle, P.C.
555 13th Street, N.W., Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 20004(202) 661-7022
/s/ Eugene F. Assaf
Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 879-5000
Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
Counsel for Appellee Securities
Investor Protection Corporation
USCA Case #12-5286 Document #1417548 Filed: 01/28/2013 Page 23 of 23