From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Oakmont

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. August Term, 1999
Apr 18, 2000
210 F.3d 420 (2d Cir. 2000)

Opinion

No. 99-5076.

Argued: April 12, 2000.

Decided: April 18, 2000.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Richard M. Berman,Judge, affirming the determination of the bankruptcy court that claimants seeking damages for failure of introducing broker to execute sale orders are not "customers" under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa, et seq.

Affirmed.

THOMAS A. HARGETT, Indianapolis, Indiana (Maddox Koeller Hargett Caruso, Steven B. Caruso, New York, New York, on the brief), for Claimants-Appellants.

STEVEN ALAN REISS, New York, New York (Adam C. Rogoff, Theodore E. Tsekerides, Jeremy E. Novak, Gary D. Ticoll, Weil, Gotshall Manges, on the brief), for Trustee-Appellee.

JOSEPHINE WANG, Senior Associate General Counsel, Washington, D.C. (Stephen P. Harbeck, General Counsel, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, Washing ton, D.C., on the brief),for Appellee.

Before: NEWMAN, KEARSE, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.


The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of District Judge Richard M. Berman published at 239 B.R. 698 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff'g 229 B.R. 273 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1999).


Summaries of

In re Oakmont

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. August Term, 1999
Apr 18, 2000
210 F.3d 420 (2d Cir. 2000)
Case details for

In re Oakmont

Case Details

Full title:In Re: STRATTON OAKMONT, Debtor. CHRIS ARFORD, FRANK KATHLEEN BERNATOWICZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. August Term, 1999

Date published: Apr 18, 2000

Citations

210 F.3d 420 (2d Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Jacqueline Green Rollover Account

"Customer" is a term of art, however, Arford v. Miller, 239 B.R. 698, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) aff'd sub nom. In…

Sec. Investor Prot. Corp..

The Second Circuit has held “ ‘customer’ is a term of art and its everyday usage is not applied.” Arford v.…