Thus, it would seem that the Trustee has taken it upon himself to revoke the Court's ruling that the question of whether interest should be added to the amount of cash-in if the cash-in/cash-out theory were to prevail is before the Court. It is amazing if the Trustee has in fact taken it upon himself to in fact countermand the Judge. What I suspect happened, however, is this (though I surely don't know for certain that my suspicion is correct): In accordance with the Judge's above-quoted instruction for submission to him of a briefing schedule, the Trustee submitted a schedule which the Judge signed. (It is the schedule under which we are all operating.) The scheduling order submitted by the Trustee said that
The briefing to be submitted to the Court pursuant to the Order shall be limited to discussing the proper interpretation of Net Equity, specifically the following two issues:
1. Whether a customer's Net Equity under SIPA is equal to ??cash in/cash out ? ; or
2. Whether a customer's Net Equity under SIPA is equal to the value of the securities positions and credit balance reflected in the customer's last statement.
This statement in the scheduling order regarding the forthcoming discussion of net equity, as you can see, did not include the issue of interest on cash-in, which the judge's opinion had said is part of the briefing. Not realizing the omission, the Judge signed the order. Now, relying on the order it submitted to the Court and he signed, the Trustee is claiming that the question of interest on net equity is not part of the briefing on net equity though the Judge's opinion said it was.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).



