Petitioners were investors who lost their investment in the Stanford International Bank Ponzi scheme. Petitioners brought suit in state court against two brokers that made independent misrepresentations to investors about the bank's financial soundness and its insurance coverage. The suit was stayed by the federal court overseeing the bank's receivership. The receiver brought and settled his own claims against the insurance brokers, but, over Petitioners' objections, that settlement included a bar order precluding Petitioners from litigating their own claims in state court. The district court and the court of appeals found that the receiver had standing to assert and settle Petitioners' claims.

The question presented is whether the standing requirement of Article III limits receivers to bringing claims that are coextensive with the receivership estate and thus whether Article III precludes receivers from bringing, settling, and barring claims of third parties against non-receivership entities.

Whether Article III standing limits receivers to bringing claims that are coextensive with the receivership estate and precludes receivers from bringing, settling, and barring claims of third parties against non-receivership entities