Whether the Anti-Injunction Act allows for the issuance of a bar order by the SEC-appointed equitable receiver that permanently stays a pending state court securities claim

QUESTIONS PRESENTED An equitable receivership was appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission to administer the assets of the infamous Ponzi scheme operated by Allen Stanford. The Retirees filed a securities action against the Stanford Brokers and Underwriters in state court. Underwriters agreed to settle with the Receiver conditioned on the court permanently staying the state court securities lawsuits filed against Underwriters by the Retirees. The district court and Fifth Circuit entered the bar orders and approved the settlement. The following questions are presented: 1. Whether the Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”), 28 U.S.C. §2283, allows for the issuance of bar order by the equitable receiver appointed by the SEC that permanently stays a pending state court securities claim of the Retirees based upon general equitable principles? Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 287, 90 S.Ct. 1739, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970). 2. Whether the competing claims of the Receiver and the Retirees to the proceeds of the Underwriters polices are personal claims or in rem claims for the purpose of determining whether the “in aid of jurisdiction” exception existed to the AIA when coverage of the Receiver is contested, no hearing has been held to determine the scope of the exclusions applicable to the Receiver’s claim, and no cash proceeds of the policy have been actually paid to the Receiver? Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 642, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 2893, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1977), and Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 230; 43 S.Ct. 79, 81; 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922). (i)