If there isn't a proprietary interest at the time of receivership (whichever theory one uses to reach this conclusion), this 2nd Cir. decision is hardly novel. I suppose the novelty in this decision lies in the fact that the court was willing to convert an existing proprietary claim into a personal claim when insolvency intervenes. Had those shares been transferred pursuant to an express trust, the court was even prepared to "confront the issue of whether the equitable interests of the settlor of an inter vivos trust may be adjusted by a pro rata distribution ordered by a district court, exercising its equitable jurisdiction in an SEC-initiated receivership proceeding, to remedy fraud perpetrated upon the settlor and other victims."

Can the courts in other jurisdictions exercise this sort of "expropriatory" power to further the goals of insolvency distribution?

Look