Securities and Exchange Commission v. BIC Real Estate Development Corporation, 1:16-cv-00344

The SEC sued BIC Real Estate Development and its owner Daniel Nase for securities fraud after Nase ran a pre‑investigation liquidation that transferred fractionalized interests in about 60 residential properties to investors.
The Court appointed David Stapleton as receiver with exclusive control over receivership assets and directed third parties to turn over receivership property.
The Receiver negotiated restoration of title with many investors; as of the motion, fractional interests in ten properties (held by 25 investors) remained unreturned despite notice and efforts to obtain voluntary turnover.
The Receiver moved to be appointed as elisor (or alternatively for show‑cause civil sanctions or authorization to bring turnover litigation) to execute deeds and restore property interests to the receivership.
The SEC supported appointing the Receiver as elisor as the most efficient, cost‑effective way to consolidate and liquidate the properties for the benefit of all investors and creditors.
No party opposed the Receiver’s motion; the Court found summary procedures appropriate, concluded the fractional transfers were improper, and granted appointment of the Receiver as elisor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary procedures and equitable relief are appropriate to recover improperly conveyed fractional property interests	Receiver: summary procedures are proper; noncompliant investors had notice and opportunity to be heard; transfers were improper and subject to turnover	Noncompliant investors: largely silent or refused turnover; no formal opposition filed	Court: summary procedures appropriate; due process satisfied by notice and opportunity to respond; relief authorized
Whether the Receiver should be appointed as elisor to execute deeds and restore title	Receiver: appointment as elisor is necessary, efficient, and authorized by court’s equitable powers and state law practice to enforce orders	Investors: refusal to cooperate; no contrary legal claim established	Court: grant; Receiver appointed as elisor to restore real property interests to receivership
Whether alternative remedies (show‑cause sanctions or turnover litigation) were required instead of appointment as elisor	Receiver: elisor appointment is the most efficient, cost‑effective remedy; alternatives unnecessary given lack of opposition and prior efforts	Investors: (no persuasive opposition or alternative proffered)	Court: did not require sanctions or new litigation; appointed elisor as proper remedy

SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1980) (federal courts have broad equitable authority to issue ancillary relief in SEC enforcement actions)
United States v. Ariz. Fuels Corp., 739 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1984) (summary proceedings appropriate to protect receivership assets)
SEC v. Sharp Capital, Inc., 315 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2003) (summary procedures appropriate to determine ownership of assets in receivership)
SEC v. Basic Energy & Affiliated Res., 273 F.3d 657 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming use of summary procedures in receivership asset disputes)
SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1992) (district courts have broad discretion to adjudicate relief in equity receiverships)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (due process requires adequate notice and opportunity to be heard)