PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 14, 2016
This bill amends the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 to revise provisions related to determining a customer's "net equity" (the dollar amount of the customer's accounts) for purposes of a claim.
In general, such a determination shall be based on: (1) the information contained in the customer's final statement, and (2) certain additional written confirmations received after the final statement but prior to the filing date. However, the bill establishes exceptions to this requirement: (1) when the debtor's records indicate a higher net value, or (2) in specified cases involving the customer's awareness of fraudulent activity by the debtor.
The bill also establishes specified methodologies for allocating a customer's property in a liquidation proceeding.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Under current law, a "customer" of a debtor is a person that has a claim on account of certain securities received, acquired, or held by the debtor. The bill expands the definition of "customer" to include a person: (1) that had cash or securities that were converted or otherwise misappropriated by the debtor, irrespective of whether the debtor held or otherwise had custody, possession, or control of such cash or securities; or (2) that is deemed a customer of the debtor by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The SEC may direct the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to take necessary or appropriate action for the protection of investors.
If the balance of the SIPC Fund decreases by more than a specified amount during a fiscal year, the SIPC must establish and carry out a fund replenishment plan.
The SEC may transfer amounts from a specified fund established under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 if the SEC determines that payments from the SIPC Fund are required because a debtor committed fraud.
People & committees
Rep. Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO-3] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5852 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5852 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5852 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5852 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.