This matter concerns the constitutional limits on the authority of the federal court to exercise, sua sponte, in the absence of a case or controversy between the parties, coercive inquisitorial power to determine whether a defendant has complied with the terms of a consent decree obtained by the Securities & Exchange Commission, including a general injunction against violating the securities laws and an equitable remedy to provide an agreed upon disclosure to prospective investors obtained by the SEC under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). The question presented is:

1. Whether the issuance of an extraordinary writ of prohibition is required to remedy the district court's assertion of "inherent authority" to initiate and conduct, sua sponte, in the absence of a case or controversy, an investigation into whether Petitioner has complied with two Consent Decree injunctions obtained by the SEC, and whether this supposed authority allows the district court, as part of its supervision of the auction of receivership assets, to conduct its own investigation, if Petitioner participates in the sale process.

2. Whether the sua sponte exercise of such coercive inquisitorial power: exceeds the Article III limits on the federal court's jurisdiction; unconstitutionally usurps the Article II authority of the SEC; and, unduly interferes with Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to freely participate in the marketplace without undue governmental interference and in the scheduled auction on the same terms as any other participant.

Whether the federal court exceeded its Article III authority by initiating a sua sponte investigation into a defendant's compliance with a consent decree obtained by the SEC