State v. Schatz-Sousa

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• customer status under SIPA requires a claimant to prove intent to invest in a security, as that term is defined by SIPA
• “Whether a claimant deposited funds with the debtor does not depend simply on to whom claimants made their checks payable. The relevant inquiry is whether the brokerage firm actually received, acquired or possessed Claimants’ property.”
• “If a claimant intended to have the brokerage purchase securities on the claimant’s behalf and reasonably followed the broker’s instructions regarding payment, the claimant is a ‘customer’ under SIPA even if the brokerage or its agents misappropriate the funds.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).