The District Court acknowledged that there was a lack of authority on this issue, but without deciding whether the FDCPA authorized prejudgment remedies against Babikian before he owed a debt to the United States, the District Court sustained the writs on equitable grounds. Noting that Section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 “confer general powers upon the district courts that are invoked by a showing of a securities law violation,” the District Court held that the prejudgment remedies were reasonable to preserve the status quo, and authorized by equitable principles. 

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Babikian, No. 14 Civ. 1740 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2014).