be entitled to the same immunity enjoyed by the SEC when it is performing functions delegated to it under the SEC’s broad oversight authority”). Indeed, the doctrine of absolute immunity for SROs has been characterized as a matter of simple “fairness” in light of their “quasi-governmental powers.” DL Capital, 409 F.3d at 97-98 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is further beyond dispute that at least the sovereign immunity enjoyed in the first instance by government agencies themselves has been recognized as shielding them — absent waiver of the sort found in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) — from enforcement of subpoenas duces tecum in civil suits to which the United States is not a party. See U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Gen. Elec. Co., 197 F.3d 592, 597-99 (2d Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>), opinion amended in part on rehearing, 212
recognizing that while the lack of an express statute granting sovereign immunity precludes such immunity as a matter of law the entity in question could still be determined to be acting as an agency of the state under the facts and circumstances of a particular relationship holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding that federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court holding that waiver of sovereign immunity under federal tort claims act for intentional acts committed by federal law enforcement was not limited to investigative activities recognizing that enforcement of thirdparty subpoena issued by civil defendant would compel federal agency to act and would therefore be barred by sovereign immunity but for the express waiver set forth in the apa