Opinion ID: 769835
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trustee

Text: 19 As with the SIPC's claims as a subrogee, the district court found that it was bound by Redington to find that the Trustee has standing to assert claims on behalf of Baron's customers. See supra I.A.1; Seidman, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 654. Under Redington, a trustee in a broker-dealer liquidation proceeding has the power to bring suit against any wrongdoer whom [the customers] could sue themselves. Redington, 592 F.2d at 625. In so holding, we reasoned that an SIPA trustee acts as a bailee of the customers' property, and, in an effort to marshal[] and return[] that property, may sue any third party responsible for the customers' losses. See id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)'s provision that a . . . bailee . . . may sue in his own name without joining with him the party for whose benefit the action is brought). 20 As with the issue of the SIPC's standing, see supra I.A.1, Seidman argues that Redington wrongly decided the question of an SIPA trustee's ability to sue third parties, and urges us to review that issue here. Like the SIPC question, however, the issue of the Trustee's standing is not crucial to this appeal, because we find that the Trustee's claims on behalf of Baron's customers fail in any event under Rule 12(b)(6). See infraPart II. Accordingly, we assume without deciding that the Trustee has standing to sue Seidman on customers' behalf in this case, and proceed to consider its claims on the merits. 21