Task: songer_bank_r1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
Your task is to determine whether or not the first listed respondent is bankrupt. If there is no indication of whether or not the respondent is bankrupt, the respondent is presumed to be not bankrupt.

PER CURIAM.
Alleging that Ralph H. Seipel, a registered investment adviser, had violated § 206(1, 2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C.A. § 80b-6(l) and (2), and was about to continue to do so, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the continuance of the acts and practices said to constitute such violations. The District Court entered a permanent injunction from which Seipel appeals.
The record fully justified the action of the District Court.
Affirmed.

Question: Is the first listed respondent bankrupt?
A. Yes
B. No
Answer:

Answer: B