PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 20, 2012
Equitable Treatment of Investors Act - Amends the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 to revise the definition of "net equity."
Bases the determination of net equity, the positions, options, and contracts of a customer reported to the customer as held by the debtor, and any indebtedness of the customer to the debtor, upon: (1) the information contained in the last statement issued by the debtor to the customer before the filing date; and (2) any additional written confirmations of the customer's positions, options, contracts, or indebtedness received after such last statement but before the filing date.
Makes an exception to this requirement when a debtor's recorders indicate a higher value. Requires determination of the customer's net equity using the debtor's books and records instead of the customer's last statement when the debtor's books and records indicate that the net value of a customer's positions, options, and contracts reported to the customer as held by the debtor, and any indebtedness of the customer to the debtor, is greater than the customer's net value as calculated on the basis specified by this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits reliance on the final statement of the debtor to customer, however, if the customer: (1) knew the debtor was involved in fraudulent activity with respect to any of its customers which reasonably indicated a fraud adversely affecting a substantial number of customers; or (2) as a registered broker, dealer, or investment adviser under specified securities laws, or a person required to be so registered, knew, or should have known, that the debtor was involved in a fraudulent activity and did not notify the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or law enforcement personnel.
Prohibits a trustee in bankruptcy in a liquidation proceeding from recovering any property transferred by the debtor to a customer before the filing date unless, at the time of such transfer, the customer meets the same criteria regarding actual or constructive knowledge of the debtor's involvement in fraudulent activity.
Prescribes alternative methodologies for allocation of customer property to customers by a trustee in a liquidation proceeding. Requires public notice and comment as a prerequisite to court approval of a proposed allocation methodology.
Transfers from the SIPC to the SEC authority to nominate to a court persons for appointment as trustee for the liquidation of a debtor's business and as attorney for the trustee.
Prohibits a trustee from serving in multiple liquidations if the trustee is currently serving as such under this Act for the liquidation of the business of another debtor.
Sets forth requirements for trustee and attorney compensation.
Requires the SIPC to issue quarterly public reports on its payments to the trustee, as well as all other costs in connection with the liquidation proceeding.
Prescribes the timing of: (1) SIPC advances, and (2) payments to customers.
People & committees
Rep. Garrett, Scott [R-NJ-5] · R–NJ
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.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.6695 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.6695 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.6695 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.6695 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.