a purchaser. Defendants argue that unless BPI Global had “unfettered discretion” to purchase Sonus stocks on behalf of BPI Capital, it does not have statutory standing. Courts are not in agreement regarding whether an investment advisor purchasing securities on behalf of its clients qualifies as a purchaser under the Exchange Act. See generally Brian P. Murray, Does An Asset Manager Have Standing Under the Federal Securities Laws?, 79 St. John’s L.Rev. 405 (2005). Compare In re Enron Corp. Sec., No. H-01-3624, 2006 WL 4 status, other courts have focused on the decision making authority of investment ad-visors. Without resolving the issue, the Ninth Circuit last month described this approach as finding “an investment advisor has an interest in its own 9 F.R.D. 499, 506 (S.D.Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). Instead of focusing on form, these courts
holding that slusa precludes statelaw class action claims against these banks because the claims are predicated on the banks involvement with the fraudulent securities transactions of bernard l madoff investment securities madoff securities holding that a fiduciary corporation was a purchaser within the meaning of  12a2 and was entitled to bring suit on its own behalf or on behalf of its clients holding that a law firm receiving funds for a client was not an initial transferee because the firms role with respect to the received money was to accept the funds in settlement of its clients case deposit the money in trust keep as fees only what the the clients agreed to and pay the rest to the bank on behalf of the clients in satisfaction of their loan recognizing defense in securities case holding banks that bought securities on behalf of their clients had sufficient interest in the case to serve as lead plaintiffs