SEC v. Sharp Capital, Inc.

Sharp Capital · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · January 15, 2003 · No. Nos. 01-10314, 01-11108

Summary

The Fifth Circuit affirmed district court orders approving settlements negotiated by a court-appointed Special Master in an SEC receivership involving Sharp Capital and enjoining investors from pursuing related state-court claims. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion by using summary proceedings to determine whether the investors’ claims were direct claims or claims belonging to the Sharp estate. The court concluded that the investors failed to show prejudice from the summary procedure or establish direct claims against the settling parties.

Holdings

  1. A district court administering an equity receivership may use a summary-judgment-type proceeding to determine whether asserted causes of action are direct claims of investors or derivative claims belonging to the receivership estate; the court is not limited to a Rule 12(b)(6)-type review of the pleadings.
  2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the Fernandez Group to come forward with evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue regarding direct claims after the special master identified the absence of supporting evidence.
  3. The Fernandez Group failed to establish direct claims against the Bank or Grupo Protexa; claims arising from Sharp's handling or loss of investor funds were derivative of Sharp's claims and therefore within the special master's authority.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court could use a summary-judgment-type proceeding, rather than limiting its inquiry to the pleadings, to determine whether the Fernandez Group's claims were direct claims or derivative claims belonging to Sharp's receivership estate.
  2. Whether the summary proceedings provided the Fernandez Group a fair and adequate opportunity to establish direct claims against the Bank and Grupo Protexa.
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by approving the settlements and entering injunctions barring the Fernandez Group from pursuing the claims in state court.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (8)

  • Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co., 406 U.S. 416, 432 n.22 (1972)(followed)
  • Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City v. Wright (In re Educators Group Health Trust), 25 F.3d 1281, 1284 (5th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1566-68, 1570-71 (11th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • SEC v. Basic Energy & Affiliated Resources, 273 F.3d 657, 668 (6th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • CFTC v. Topworth International, Ltd., 205 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Kinsey v. Farmland Industries, 39 F.3d 603, 606 (5th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Citizens National Bank v. Hill, 505 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Tex. 1974)(applied)
  • In re MortgageAmerica Corp., 714 F.2d 1266, 1271 (5th Cir. 1983)(applied)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…