U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 2B–1— SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION

15 U.S.C. § 78iii

Functions of self-regulatory organizations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Collection agent

Each self-regulatory organization shall act as collection agent for SIPC to collect the assessments payable by all members of SIPC for whom such self-regulatory organization is the examining authority, unless SIPC designates a self-regulatory organization other than the examining authority to act as collection agent for any member of SIPC who is a member of or participant in more than one self-regulatory organization. If the only self-regulatory organization of which a member of SIPC is a member or in which it is a participant is a registered clearing agency that is not the examining authority for the member, SIPC may, nevertheless, designate such registered clearing agency as collection agent for the member or may require that payments be made directly to SIPC. The collection agent shall be obligated to remit to SIPC assessments made under section 78ddd of this title only to the extent that payments of such assessment are received by such collection agent. Members of SIPC who are not members of or participants in a self-regulatory organization shall make payments directly to SIPC.

(b) Immunity

No self-regulatory organization shall have any liability to any person for any action taken or omitted in good faith pursuant to section 78eee(a)(1) and section 78eee(a)(2) of this title.

(c) InspectionsThe self-regulatory organization of which a member of SIPC is a member or in which it is a participant shall inspect or examine such member for compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules, except that—(1) if the self-regulatory organization is a registered clearing agency, the Commission may designate itself as responsible for the examination of such member for compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules; and(2) if a member of SIPC is a member of or participant in more than one self-regulatory organization, the Commission, pursuant to section 78q(d) of this title, shall designate one of such self-regulatory organizations or itself as responsible for the examination of such member for compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules.(d) Reports

There shall be filed with SIPC by the self-regulatory organizations such reports of inspections or examinations of the members of SIPC (or copies thereof) as may be designated by SIPC by bylaw or rule.

(e) ConsultationSIPC shall consult and cooperate with the self-regulatory organizations toward the end:(1) that there may be developed and carried into effect procedures reasonably designed to detect approaching financial difficulty upon the part of any member of SIPC;(2) that, as nearly as may be practicable, examinations to ascertain whether members of SIPC are in compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules will be conducted by the self-regulatory organizations under appropriate standards (both as to method and scope) and reports of such examinations will, where appropriate, be standard in form; and(3) that, as frequently as may be practicable under the circumstances, each member of SIPC will file financial information with, and be examined by, the self-regulatory organization which is the examining authority for such member.(f) Financial condition of members

The Commission may, by such rules as it determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest and to carry out the purposes of this chapter, require any self-regulatory organization to furnish SIPC with reports and records (or copies thereof) relating to the financial condition of members of or participants in such self-regulatory organization.

(Pub. L. 91–598, § 13, formerly § 9, Dec. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1654; amended Pub. L. 94–29, § 26, June 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 163; renumbered § 13 and amended Pub. L. 95–283, §§ 9, 12, May 21, 1978, 92 Stat. 260, 269.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (f), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 91–598, Dec. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1636. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Amendments

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–283, § 12(a), in heading substituted “Collection” for “Collecting”, and in text inserted provisions relating to designation of a self-regulatory organization other than the examining authority to act as collection agent and provisions relating to designation of a registered clearing agency as collection agent, and substituted provisions relating to remittances by the collection agent to SIPC, for provisions relating to remittances by an examining authority to SIPC.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–283, § 12(b), inserted reference to section 78eee(a)(2) of this title.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 95–283, § 12(c), revised existing format and provisions into introductory text and cl. (2) and, as so revised, in introductory text inserted provisions respecting participation by a member of SIPC in a self-regulatory organization and in cl. (2) inserted provisions respecting such participation and authorization for the Commission to designate itself as responsible for the statutory examination, and added cl. (1).

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 95–283, § 12(d), substituted provisions authorizing the Commission to set out rules requiring self-regulatory organizations to furnish SIPC with reports and records of members or participants in such self-regulatory organizations, for provisions authorizing the Commission to set out rules, and regulations requiring self-regulatory organizations to adopt rules, practices, and procedures respecting inspections and examinations of members and examiners, to furnish SIPC and the Commission with reports and records of members, and to inspect or examine members.

1975—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–29 directed the Commission to designate the self-regulatory organization to be responsible for enforcing applicable rules with respect to any firm which is a member of more than one self-regulatory organization.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–29 effective June 4, 1975, see section 31(a) of Pub. L. 94–29, set out as a note under section 78b of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1973–2011 · leading case: Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). · cites it 2× “, 15 U. S. C. § 78iii(b) (good-faith immunity for self-regulatory organizations from liability for disclosures relating to financial difficulties of certain securities dealers); 33 U.”
In Re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 654 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2011). “If the objecting BLMIS claimants are not “customers,” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2)(A), they are not entitled to the protection of SIPA at all, see Sec.”
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,499 Olga Hochfelder v. Midwest Stock Exch., Leon S. Martin v. Midwest Stock Exch., 503 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1974). “In section 9(c), 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c), Congress provided that where a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, the S.”
Handelman v. Weiss, 368 F. Supp. 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “SIPC is not a federal agency and cannot regulate its members; it is, however, responsible for helping to develop procedures designed to detect the approaching financial difficulties of its members (15 U.S. C. § 78iii(e) (1)), and it has made a practice of securing detailed…”
Keller v. Blinder (In Re Blinder Robinson & Co.), 135 B.R. 892 (D. Colo. 1991). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2). “Customer property” is defined as “cash and securities (except customer name securities delivered to the customer) at any time received, acquired, or held by or for the account of a debtor from or for the securities accounts of a customer, and the…”
Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Pepperdine Univ. (In Re Brentwood Sec., Inc.), 87 B.R. 602 (9th Cir. BAP 1988). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(14). It is apparent from the record that the trial court in considering this issue addressed only the broad language generally applicable to a security, i.”
Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Waddell Jenmar Sec., Inc. (In Re Waddell Jenmar Sec., Inc.), 126 B.R. 935 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1991). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2) provides in pertinent part that: [t]he term “customer” of a debtor means any person (including any person with whom the debtor deals as principal or agent) who has a claim on account of securities received, acquired, or held by the debtor in the ordinary…”
Jackman v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. (In re Brentwood Sec., Inc.), 96 B.R. 1002 (9th Cir. BAP 1989). “See 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2) (defining “customer” as a person “who has a claim on account of securities received, acquired, or held by the debtor in the ordinary course of its business as a broker deal- er_”) (emphasis added).”
Mitchell v. Chicago P'ship Bd., Inc., 246 B.R. 854 (N.D. Ill. 2000). “15 U.S.C. § 78iii(14) (emphasis added). The statute makes no reference to limited partnership interests, but Mitchell claims that the investments he made are protected by the act because they are “investment contracts,” and he argues that they also can be considered “any other…”
P. David Newsome v. Culp (In Re Fitzgerald, De Arman & Roberts, Inc.), 129 B.R. 652 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1991). “(“NASD”), 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c), (d). SIPA and SIPC are intended, not merely to provide a mechanism for winding up failed brokers, but to “upgrade the financial responsibility requirements for registered brokers and dealers,” SIPC v.”
Collins v. PBW Stock Exch., Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1344 (E.D. Pa. 1976). “§ 78f and § 9(c) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c), the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and common law principles.”
Aldrich v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 446 F. Supp. 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). “The Exchange also moves to strike so much of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f) as alleges violations of section 9(c) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c), upon the ground that such allegations are redundant, immaterial, impertinent and…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(14) — 2 cases
Mitchell v. Chicago P'ship Bd., Inc., 246 B.R. 854 (N.D. Ill. 2000). “15 U.S.C. § 78iii(14) (emphasis added). The statute makes no reference to limited partnership interests, but Mitchell claims that the investments he made are protected by the act because they are “investment contracts,” and he argues that they also can be considered “any other…”
Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Pepperdine Univ. (In Re Brentwood Sec., Inc.), 87 B.R. 602 (9th Cir. BAP 1988). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(14). It is apparent from the record that the trial court in considering this issue addressed only the broad language generally applicable to a security, i.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2) — 4 cases
Keller v. Blinder (In Re Blinder Robinson & Co.), 135 B.R. 892 (D. Colo. 1991). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2). “Customer property” is defined as “cash and securities (except customer name securities delivered to the customer) at any time received, acquired, or held by or for the account of a debtor from or for the securities accounts of a customer, and the…”
Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Waddell Jenmar Sec., Inc. (In Re Waddell Jenmar Sec., Inc.), 126 B.R. 935 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1991). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2) provides in pertinent part that: [t]he term “customer” of a debtor means any person (including any person with whom the debtor deals as principal or agent) who has a claim on account of securities received, acquired, or held by the debtor in the ordinary…”
Jackman v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. (In re Brentwood Sec., Inc.), 96 B.R. 1002 (9th Cir. BAP 1989). “See 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2) (defining “customer” as a person “who has a claim on account of securities received, acquired, or held by the debtor in the ordinary course of its business as a broker deal- er_”) (emphasis added).”
Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Pepperdine Univ. (In Re Brentwood Sec., Inc.), 87 B.R. 602 (9th Cir. BAP 1988). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(14). It is apparent from the record that the trial court in considering this issue addressed only the broad language generally applicable to a security, i.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2)(A) — 1 case
In Re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 654 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2011). “If the objecting BLMIS claimants are not “customers,” 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(2)(A), they are not entitled to the protection of SIPA at all, see Sec.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(b) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). “, 15 U. S. C. § 78iii(b) (good-faith immunity for self-regulatory organizations from liability for disclosures relating to financial difficulties of certain securities dealers); 33 U.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c) — 4 cases
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,499 Olga Hochfelder v. Midwest Stock Exch., Leon S. Martin v. Midwest Stock Exch., 503 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1974). “In section 9(c), 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c), Congress provided that where a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, the S.”
P. David Newsome v. Culp (In Re Fitzgerald, De Arman & Roberts, Inc.), 129 B.R. 652 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1991). “(“NASD”), 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c), (d). SIPA and SIPC are intended, not merely to provide a mechanism for winding up failed brokers, but to “upgrade the financial responsibility requirements for registered brokers and dealers,” SIPC v.”
Collins v. PBW Stock Exch., Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1344 (E.D. Pa. 1976). “§ 78f and § 9(c) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c), the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and common law principles.”
Aldrich v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 446 F. Supp. 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). “The Exchange also moves to strike so much of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f) as alleges violations of section 9(c) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(c), upon the ground that such allegations are redundant, immaterial, impertinent and…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78iii(e) — 1 case
Handelman v. Weiss, 368 F. Supp. 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “SIPC is not a federal agency and cannot regulate its members; it is, however, responsible for helping to develop procedures designed to detect the approaching financial difficulties of its members (15 U.S. C. § 78iii(e) (1)), and it has made a practice of securing detailed…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.