other third parties, such as banks and brokerage houses with security interests in margined securities, and the total amount of assets available to all for distribution. SECO has pressed that, injuries to other Credit Bancorp investors notwithstanding, it would be inappropriate to distribute any of its identifiable assets to other investors. SECO cites no authorities for this proposition. Though it is too early to predict when and how the assets of Credit Bancorp will be distributed, this claim is worthy of some preliminary discussion. Federal courts have come to rather different conclusions concerning the distribution of assets under an equity receivership. Certain courts have approved the return of traceable assets. See Anderson v. Stephens, 875 F.2d 76, 77-80 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); SEC v. P.B. Ventures, Civ. A. No. 90-5322,
holding that debtors payments to investors were for reasonably equivalent value because such payments reduced the amount of the investors claims for rescission holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense holding that judicial enforcement of a contract cannot convert what would otherwise be a private matter into state action holding in context of cftc enforcement action that assets deposited into account after issuance of district courts freeze order could not be included in amount to be distributed pro rata among defrauded investors holding family court has wide discretion in determining how marital property is to be distributed