Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rubera

MEMORANDUM

These two interlocutory appeals are the latest chapters in years-long litigation spawned by the collapse of Alpha Telcom, a Ponzi scheme that trafficked in unregistered securities investments in payphones). See SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir.2007) (discussing the Alpha Tel-com litigation); SEC v. Rubera, 350 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir.2003) (same). Both of the appeals now before us center, in some way, on the receiver charged with winding down Alpha Telcom.

In the first of these appeals (No. 12-35108), pro se Intervenor-Appellant Ernest Bustos complains that the district court erred by denying his requests to: (1) issue an order to show cause why the receiver and everyone in his employ should not be barred permanently from working as receivers; (2) force the receiver to disgorge fees he collected in this case, and decline to pay him anything further; and (3) refer the receiver (and the SEC) to the United States Attorney’s Office for investigation. In denying Bustos’s motion, the district judge entered an order that said, among other things, that an opinion addressing certain problems with the receiver would be forthcoming. It is from that “stay-tuned” order that Bustos…