purpose of purchasing ownership interests in the Feeder Funds themselves. Consequently, the Objecting Claimants could not have entrusted cash with BLMIS for the purpose of trading or investing in securities. C. The Objecting Claimants Lack a Fiduciary Relationship With BLMIS Without securities accounts at, or entrusting securities or cash with, the debtor for the purpose of trading or investing in securities, the Objecting Claimants cannot establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship with BLMIS akin to that of an investor and its broker-dealer. See SIPC v. Morgan, Kennedy & Co., 533 F.2d 1314, 1317 (2d Cir.1976) (“Morgan Kennedy ”) (“Emphasis on the customer as investor and purchaser/trader has been a consistent theme in cases in [the Second] Circuit.”); Appleton, 62 F.3d at 801 (<HOLDING>). When determining customer status, courts
holding that an investor who entrusts cash with the debtor for the purpose of trading or investing in securities has a fiduciary relationship with the brokerdealer holding that claims alleging that the debtor fraudulently induced the claimants to retain securities they had purchased from the debtor arise from the purchase or sale of those securities for purposes of  510b holding that claims that debtor fraudulently induced claimants to retain debtors securities arise from the purchase or sale of those securities holding rosenman was a customer under sipa because he entrusted funds with the debtor blmis for the purpose of investing in securities holding that a debtor in bankruptcy may claim as exempt the cash surrender value of a life insurance policy insuring the life of the debtor that is payable to a beneficiary other than the debtor under dccode ann  314716a2001 despite the absence of the term cash surrender from the statute