Stanford Group sold the CDs while claiming that they were backed, at least in part, by SLUSA-covered securities.
Therefore, the government's lawyers say, the bogus investments were in fact sold "in connection with" covered securities. And for SLUSA to work, it must be interpreted broadly, and the SEC's views (as the SLUSA watchdog) must be given deference.
"Congress intended the phrase 'in connection with' to sweep widely enough to ensure achievement of 'a high standard of business ethics in the securities industry,'" while reining in excessive class actions, the government argues.
But Preis says the SEC is backing what Goldstein calls a "newfound interpretation of the securities laws" to broaden its enforcement power "at the expense of backing the Stanford victims." Since the Stanford products that local investors bought were not sold on the New York Stock Exchange, state law should apply, he says.
Regardless, it's an intriguing turn in the SEC's complicated role in the Stanford fiasco. Many victims blame the regulators for not catching on to Allen Stanford's scheme early. But the SEC backed investors' controversial bid for relief from the Securities Investor Protection Corp., even though the Stanford International Bank in Antigua, which issued the worthless CDs, was never a SIPC member.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic198.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Showing posts with label sipa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sipa. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
SEC Can't Force Help For Stanford Victims, DC Circ. Told
The Securities Investor Protection Corp. asked the D.C. Circuit on Monday to affirm a landmark district court ruling declaring it doesn’t owe compensation to victims of Robert Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme, suggesting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission succumbed to political pressure in bringing the suit.
The SIPC asked the appeals court to affirm U.S. District Judge Robert L. Wilkins’ decision dismissing the agency’s application to compel the SIPC to pay the fraud victims’ claims through a liquidation proceeding.
A top agency official had originally agreed that the SIPC did not owe funds under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC claims, but that changed after U.S. Senator David Vitter, R-La., threatened to block the nominations of two SEC officials in June 2011, the SIPC said.
“The record shows that the SEC's general counsel agreed that SIPA did not apply to the Stanford case,” the SIPC said. “It was only two years later that the SEC sought to force SIPC's hand, apparently bowing to pressure from a U.S. senator,” referencing a June 14, 2011, press release from Vitter.
The corporation, funded by the brokerage industry to cover investors who lose money in failing firms, also claims the SEC didn’t seek a liquidation until two years after its 2009 case against Stanford.
“If the SEC had thought the Stanford fraud was within the scope of what SIPA protects, it was under a legal obligation to notify SIPC immediately,” the SIPC said. “The SEC did not do so, even though it filed an enforcement action against Stanford and secured the appointment of a receiver over U.S. Stanford assets in February 2009.”
On July 3, Judge Wilkins ruled that Stanford's U.S.-based Stanford Group Co. was a member of the SIPC, but that the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank was not. Stanford International Bank Ltd. was an offshore bank, not a registered broker-dealer, which is what the SIPC oversees, Judge Wilkins said.
Judge Wilkins’ decision was a major blow to victims of the Ponzi scheme, who together lost upwards of $7 billion in certificates of deposit administered by Stanford International Bank. It also carried broader legal significance, marking the first time since the enactment of SIPA 42 years ago that a federal court had ruled on how much power the SEC has to command a SIPC liquidation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that brokerage customers cannot force such proceedings, but that the SEC has the authority to do so.
Because of its precedential nature, a key issue in the Stanford dispute was the standard of proof required of the SEC. The agency argued for a more lenient standard than the SIPC did, describing its burden as merely probable cause supported by hearsay. Judge Wilkins ultimately chose the higher standard requested by the SIPC: a preponderance of the evidence. In an SIPC liquidation, an investor must meet a preponderance standard to prove the validity of his or her claim.
In its appellate brief filed in January, the SEC said Judge Wilkins had taken a too-narrow view of the term "customer." The agency argued that transactions with both Stanford entities should be treated the same way under SIPA because the company operated “as a single fraudulent enterprise that ignored corporate boundaries.”
“This interpretation of the statute to allow for flexibility in certain circumstances is the correct one, and it is at least a reasonable one that was entitled to deference by the district court,” the SEC said.
The SEC added that it was not seeking customer status for all Stanford investors, but only for those who held accounts with Stanford Group Co., purchased fraudulent certificates of deposit through SGC and deposited funds with Stanford International Bank Ltd.
But SIPC said Monday that the terms of its mission were clear: to protect investors when a member brokerage fails, adding that Judge Wilkins' purportedly narrow view of the term 'customer' was appropriate.
"By its terms, the statute does not insure against fraud or investment losses, instead protecting only the 'customer' property that an SIPC-'member' brokerage firm holds in custody when the brokerage fails,” the corporation added.
The corporation also said the SEC’s case was unprecedented because it has not made similar requests in proceedings related to the downfall of a major financial institution.
“In 40 years and over 300 liquidation proceedings — including the recent liquidations of Lehman Brothers Inc., Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and MF Global Inc. — this is the first the the SEC had ever tried to compel a liquidation. '
Stanford was sentenced in June to 110 years in prison for his role in the fraud.
SIPC is represented by Edwin John U, Eugene F. Assaf Jr., John C. O'Quinn, Michael W. McConnell and Elizabeth M. Locke of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., case number 12-5286, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The SIPC asked the appeals court to affirm U.S. District Judge Robert L. Wilkins’ decision dismissing the agency’s application to compel the SIPC to pay the fraud victims’ claims through a liquidation proceeding.
A top agency official had originally agreed that the SIPC did not owe funds under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC claims, but that changed after U.S. Senator David Vitter, R-La., threatened to block the nominations of two SEC officials in June 2011, the SIPC said.
“The record shows that the SEC's general counsel agreed that SIPA did not apply to the Stanford case,” the SIPC said. “It was only two years later that the SEC sought to force SIPC's hand, apparently bowing to pressure from a U.S. senator,” referencing a June 14, 2011, press release from Vitter.
The corporation, funded by the brokerage industry to cover investors who lose money in failing firms, also claims the SEC didn’t seek a liquidation until two years after its 2009 case against Stanford.
“If the SEC had thought the Stanford fraud was within the scope of what SIPA protects, it was under a legal obligation to notify SIPC immediately,” the SIPC said. “The SEC did not do so, even though it filed an enforcement action against Stanford and secured the appointment of a receiver over U.S. Stanford assets in February 2009.”
On July 3, Judge Wilkins ruled that Stanford's U.S.-based Stanford Group Co. was a member of the SIPC, but that the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank was not. Stanford International Bank Ltd. was an offshore bank, not a registered broker-dealer, which is what the SIPC oversees, Judge Wilkins said.
Judge Wilkins’ decision was a major blow to victims of the Ponzi scheme, who together lost upwards of $7 billion in certificates of deposit administered by Stanford International Bank. It also carried broader legal significance, marking the first time since the enactment of SIPA 42 years ago that a federal court had ruled on how much power the SEC has to command a SIPC liquidation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that brokerage customers cannot force such proceedings, but that the SEC has the authority to do so.
Because of its precedential nature, a key issue in the Stanford dispute was the standard of proof required of the SEC. The agency argued for a more lenient standard than the SIPC did, describing its burden as merely probable cause supported by hearsay. Judge Wilkins ultimately chose the higher standard requested by the SIPC: a preponderance of the evidence. In an SIPC liquidation, an investor must meet a preponderance standard to prove the validity of his or her claim.
In its appellate brief filed in January, the SEC said Judge Wilkins had taken a too-narrow view of the term "customer." The agency argued that transactions with both Stanford entities should be treated the same way under SIPA because the company operated “as a single fraudulent enterprise that ignored corporate boundaries.”
“This interpretation of the statute to allow for flexibility in certain circumstances is the correct one, and it is at least a reasonable one that was entitled to deference by the district court,” the SEC said.
The SEC added that it was not seeking customer status for all Stanford investors, but only for those who held accounts with Stanford Group Co., purchased fraudulent certificates of deposit through SGC and deposited funds with Stanford International Bank Ltd.
But SIPC said Monday that the terms of its mission were clear: to protect investors when a member brokerage fails, adding that Judge Wilkins' purportedly narrow view of the term 'customer' was appropriate.
"By its terms, the statute does not insure against fraud or investment losses, instead protecting only the 'customer' property that an SIPC-'member' brokerage firm holds in custody when the brokerage fails,” the corporation added.
The corporation also said the SEC’s case was unprecedented because it has not made similar requests in proceedings related to the downfall of a major financial institution.
“In 40 years and over 300 liquidation proceedings — including the recent liquidations of Lehman Brothers Inc., Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and MF Global Inc. — this is the first the the SEC had ever tried to compel a liquidation. '
Stanford was sentenced in June to 110 years in prison for his role in the fraud.
SIPC is represented by Edwin John U, Eugene F. Assaf Jr., John C. O'Quinn, Michael W. McConnell and Elizabeth M. Locke of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., case number 12-5286, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit:
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
http://sivg.org.ag/
The Stanford International Victims Group Forum
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Stanford investors insurance coverage source of internal SEC dispute
Loren Steffy
Chron.com
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s change of heart with regard to the long-suffering investors of Allen Stanford is now a little more clear.
Earlier this week, the SEC’s inspector general released his latest report, this one focusing on potential conflicts of interest involving David Becker, the commission’s former general counsel and senior policy director. Becker was involved in the SEC’s case to liquidate Bernard Madoff’s investment firm under the Securities Investor Protection Act, a 1970s law that created an industry-funded insurance program for investors who lost money through broker fraud. Becker, it was later reported, had inherited some “fictitious profits” from a Madoff account that had belonged to his mother and that was liquidated after her death.
The rules for coverage under SIPA, which is administered through the Securities Investor Protection Corp., are very specific. Becker supported the idea that Madoff investors were covered, but he opposed the idea in the Stanford case, according to the report.
Becker himself took a different approach when he analyzed SIPA coverage issue for investors in the multi-billion Ponzi scheme ofR. Allen Stanford from the approach described above in the Madoff Liquidation. After the SEC brought a civil enforcement action against Stanford and three ofhis companies, the President and CEO of SIPC sent a letter to the receiver appointed for the Stanford matter indicating that, based on the facts as set forth by the receiver, there was no basis for SIPC to initiate a proceeding under SIPA with respect to Stanford investors. Becker testified that he became involved initially in the SEC’s considerations about SIPC coverage with respect to Stanford investors, and his opinion as to the matter “was that SIPA, the statute, did not cover the Stanford situation,” noting that although “it didn’t make sense that it would not cover something like Stanford, but cover Madoff, … the law is the law.” By contrast, in the Madoff Liquidation, Becker considered a variety of approaches for determining net equity in order to, as Becker testified, “take the position which got the most money [to] injured investors consistent with the law.”
Becker’s opposition to SIPC coverage for Stanford investors may be the reason that the SEC appeared to support SIPC’s position that clients of Stanford’s brokerage weren’t covered, even though Stanford’s brokerage, a SIPC member, peddled the bogus certificates of deposit at the heart of the alleged Ponzi scheme.
After Becker left, the SEC changed its mind on the idea of SIPC coverage, saying many of Stanford’s U.S. investors should be covered under the law. SIPC’s board is still considering the SEC’s decisions, and its expected to announce its own decision this month.
Here’s the full inspector general’s report.
Oig-560 Madoff v Stanford Sipc
Chron.com
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s change of heart with regard to the long-suffering investors of Allen Stanford is now a little more clear.
Earlier this week, the SEC’s inspector general released his latest report, this one focusing on potential conflicts of interest involving David Becker, the commission’s former general counsel and senior policy director. Becker was involved in the SEC’s case to liquidate Bernard Madoff’s investment firm under the Securities Investor Protection Act, a 1970s law that created an industry-funded insurance program for investors who lost money through broker fraud. Becker, it was later reported, had inherited some “fictitious profits” from a Madoff account that had belonged to his mother and that was liquidated after her death.
The rules for coverage under SIPA, which is administered through the Securities Investor Protection Corp., are very specific. Becker supported the idea that Madoff investors were covered, but he opposed the idea in the Stanford case, according to the report.
Becker himself took a different approach when he analyzed SIPA coverage issue for investors in the multi-billion Ponzi scheme ofR. Allen Stanford from the approach described above in the Madoff Liquidation. After the SEC brought a civil enforcement action against Stanford and three ofhis companies, the President and CEO of SIPC sent a letter to the receiver appointed for the Stanford matter indicating that, based on the facts as set forth by the receiver, there was no basis for SIPC to initiate a proceeding under SIPA with respect to Stanford investors. Becker testified that he became involved initially in the SEC’s considerations about SIPC coverage with respect to Stanford investors, and his opinion as to the matter “was that SIPA, the statute, did not cover the Stanford situation,” noting that although “it didn’t make sense that it would not cover something like Stanford, but cover Madoff, … the law is the law.” By contrast, in the Madoff Liquidation, Becker considered a variety of approaches for determining net equity in order to, as Becker testified, “take the position which got the most money [to] injured investors consistent with the law.”
Becker’s opposition to SIPC coverage for Stanford investors may be the reason that the SEC appeared to support SIPC’s position that clients of Stanford’s brokerage weren’t covered, even though Stanford’s brokerage, a SIPC member, peddled the bogus certificates of deposit at the heart of the alleged Ponzi scheme.
After Becker left, the SEC changed its mind on the idea of SIPC coverage, saying many of Stanford’s U.S. investors should be covered under the law. SIPC’s board is still considering the SEC’s decisions, and its expected to announce its own decision this month.
Here’s the full inspector general’s report.
Oig-560 Madoff v Stanford Sipc
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Two Peas in a Pod?
UPDATE: Allen Stanford and Whitey Bulger:
Two Peas in a Pod?
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 23, 2011
I referenced the potential similarity in the cases of alleged financial scammer Allen Stanford and noted Boston gangster James J. “Whitey” Bulger in May 2009.
Our nation and especially Stanford Financial investors continue to wait to learn what may have really happened with Allen Stanford. Was he a pawn for the Department of Justice and/or other government agencies looking to infiltrate the Central and South American drug trade?
As for Whitey, after sixteen years of living on the lam, we wait no longer as news broke overnight that the notorious South Boston gangster was picked up in sunny Santa Monica, California.
I am sure the boys back in Boston may get a real chuckle from the fact that Whitey was allegedly using the alias, Charlie Rosenzweig. That said, there is little to chuckle about the personal damage and destruction Whitey and his Winter Hill Gang wrecked by pushing drugs into the streets of South Boston,… amongst other things as well, including murder and extortion!!
While there is nothing romantic about the story of Whitey Bulger, there is certainly a special place in hell for him.
Here’s hoping America can really learn what happened with Allen Stanford.
For those unfamiliar with Whitey, he is Boston’s greatest gangster, a government informant who simultaneously continued to run his gangland activities, one of the FBI’s Most Wanted, and still on the lam. The Martin Scorsese film, The Departed, was largely based on Whitey and his boys. If Whitey dealt in drugs and murder, is Stanford Financial, operated by Allen Stanford, a financial version of a government cover totally run amuck?
We all know the SEC totally dropped the ball in the oversight of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. On the heels of that and to alleviate massive pressure on the commission, the SEC quickly moved on Allen Stanford.
Evidence has emerged that the Texan who bankrolled English cricket may have been a US government informer.
Sir Allen Stanford, who is accused of bank fraud, is the subject of an investigation by the BBC’s Panorama.
Sources told Panorama that if he was a paid anti-drug agency informer, that could explain why a 2006 probe into his financial dealings was quietly dropped.
Sir Allen vigorously denies allegations of financial wrongdoing, despite a massive shortfall in his bank’s assets.
But the British receiver of his failed Stanford International Bank – based in Antigua – told Panorama that the books clearly show the deficit.
If in fact this development is accurate, has the U.S. government, via the DEA, facilitated a Ponzi scheme? I am not so naive as to think that there aren’t massive undercover operations ongoing regularly to infiltrate and expose illicit activities. However, if in fact that were the case, how did the DEA lose control of Stanford’s investment activities? Is this situation an indication that the Obama administration will not partake of these types of undercover operations? Is there a massive in-house brawl currently ongoing between the DEA and the SEC?
The BBC reports:
Secret documents seen by Panorama show both governments knew in 1990 that the Texan was a former bankrupt and his first bank was suspected of involvement with Latin American money-launderers.
In 1999, both the British and the Americans were aware of the facts surrounding a cheque for $3.1m (£2.05m) that Sir Allen paid to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
It was drug money originally paid in to Stanford International Bank by agents acting for a feared Mexican drug lord known as the ‘Lord of the Heavens’.
The cheque was proof that Stanford International Bank had been used to launder Mexican drug money – whether or not Sir Allen knew it at the time.
On 17 February of this year, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused Sir Allen of running a multi-billion dollar Ponzi fraud – when cash from new depositors is used to pay dividends to old depositors – civil charges he has denied.
Two and a half months after the SEC filing, the Texan has not yet faced criminal charges.
He was initially investigated by the SEC for running a possible Ponzi fraud in the summer of 2006, but by the winter of that year the inquiry was stopped.
Is this another version of the Whitey Bulger story in which the criminal turned informant continues to operate his own illicit activities? Whitey is now on the lam and his FBI protection, John J. Connolly, is cooling his heels in a federal penitentiary.
The intrigue of this situation is surreal, but the natural and instinctive question has to be: if Uncle Sam (DEA) provided cover for Allen Stanford in the pursuit of illicit drug related activities, did Uncle Sam also provide cover for Bernie Madoff as well?
Two Peas in a Pod?
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 23, 2011
I referenced the potential similarity in the cases of alleged financial scammer Allen Stanford and noted Boston gangster James J. “Whitey” Bulger in May 2009.
Our nation and especially Stanford Financial investors continue to wait to learn what may have really happened with Allen Stanford. Was he a pawn for the Department of Justice and/or other government agencies looking to infiltrate the Central and South American drug trade?
As for Whitey, after sixteen years of living on the lam, we wait no longer as news broke overnight that the notorious South Boston gangster was picked up in sunny Santa Monica, California.
I am sure the boys back in Boston may get a real chuckle from the fact that Whitey was allegedly using the alias, Charlie Rosenzweig. That said, there is little to chuckle about the personal damage and destruction Whitey and his Winter Hill Gang wrecked by pushing drugs into the streets of South Boston,… amongst other things as well, including murder and extortion!!
While there is nothing romantic about the story of Whitey Bulger, there is certainly a special place in hell for him.
Here’s hoping America can really learn what happened with Allen Stanford.
For those unfamiliar with Whitey, he is Boston’s greatest gangster, a government informant who simultaneously continued to run his gangland activities, one of the FBI’s Most Wanted, and still on the lam. The Martin Scorsese film, The Departed, was largely based on Whitey and his boys. If Whitey dealt in drugs and murder, is Stanford Financial, operated by Allen Stanford, a financial version of a government cover totally run amuck?
We all know the SEC totally dropped the ball in the oversight of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. On the heels of that and to alleviate massive pressure on the commission, the SEC quickly moved on Allen Stanford.
Evidence has emerged that the Texan who bankrolled English cricket may have been a US government informer.
Sir Allen Stanford, who is accused of bank fraud, is the subject of an investigation by the BBC’s Panorama.
Sources told Panorama that if he was a paid anti-drug agency informer, that could explain why a 2006 probe into his financial dealings was quietly dropped.
Sir Allen vigorously denies allegations of financial wrongdoing, despite a massive shortfall in his bank’s assets.
But the British receiver of his failed Stanford International Bank – based in Antigua – told Panorama that the books clearly show the deficit.
If in fact this development is accurate, has the U.S. government, via the DEA, facilitated a Ponzi scheme? I am not so naive as to think that there aren’t massive undercover operations ongoing regularly to infiltrate and expose illicit activities. However, if in fact that were the case, how did the DEA lose control of Stanford’s investment activities? Is this situation an indication that the Obama administration will not partake of these types of undercover operations? Is there a massive in-house brawl currently ongoing between the DEA and the SEC?
The BBC reports:
Secret documents seen by Panorama show both governments knew in 1990 that the Texan was a former bankrupt and his first bank was suspected of involvement with Latin American money-launderers.
In 1999, both the British and the Americans were aware of the facts surrounding a cheque for $3.1m (£2.05m) that Sir Allen paid to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
It was drug money originally paid in to Stanford International Bank by agents acting for a feared Mexican drug lord known as the ‘Lord of the Heavens’.
The cheque was proof that Stanford International Bank had been used to launder Mexican drug money – whether or not Sir Allen knew it at the time.
On 17 February of this year, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused Sir Allen of running a multi-billion dollar Ponzi fraud – when cash from new depositors is used to pay dividends to old depositors – civil charges he has denied.
Two and a half months after the SEC filing, the Texan has not yet faced criminal charges.
He was initially investigated by the SEC for running a possible Ponzi fraud in the summer of 2006, but by the winter of that year the inquiry was stopped.
Is this another version of the Whitey Bulger story in which the criminal turned informant continues to operate his own illicit activities? Whitey is now on the lam and his FBI protection, John J. Connolly, is cooling his heels in a federal penitentiary.
The intrigue of this situation is surreal, but the natural and instinctive question has to be: if Uncle Sam (DEA) provided cover for Allen Stanford in the pursuit of illicit drug related activities, did Uncle Sam also provide cover for Bernie Madoff as well?
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
National Political Committees Must Return Stanford Donations
Source:Bloomberg
Five Democratic and Republican national political committees must return more than $1.7 million in contributions received from indicted financier R. Allen Stanford to his court-appointed receiver, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas today awarded final judgment in favor of receiver Ralph Janvey, who is marshalling assets to repay investors allegedly swindled of more than $7 billion through what the government claims was a Stanford-directed Ponzi scheme.
“Courts adhere to the principle that equality is equity in dealing with the aftermath of an imploded Ponzi scheme,” Godbey wrote in a 61-page ruling. “In disgorging the Stanford defendants’ contributions, the political committees will endure no greater hardship than that suffered by other innocent victims of the Stanford defendants’ Ponzi scheme who must do the same.”
Godbey ordered the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Inc. to return $1,037,347; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Inc., $218,273; the National Republican Congressional Committee, $260,291; the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $90,960; and the Republican National Committee, $140,241. The sums represent the donations the groups got from Stanford plus prejudgment interest, according to Godbey’s order.
Stanford, 61, denies all wrongdoing in connection with civil and criminal allegations that that he defrauded investors through the sale of bogus certificates of deposit sold by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
‘Important Victory’
“This ruling represents an important victory for the Stanford receivership and the thousands of victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme,” Kevin Sadler, lead attorney for Janvey, said in an e-mail today. “Unfortunately, the political committees waged a costly campaign to thwart the receiver’s efforts to recover the monies they received from the Stanford Ponzi scheme. The receiver will be filing appropriate papers with the court to recover the hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and expenses he was forced to incur in this case.”
Mark Shank, a lawyer for the Republican committees, didn’t immediately return voice or e-mail messages seeking comment on today’s ruling.
“We disagree with the court’s ruling and are weighing our options,’’ Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an e-mail.
The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09cr342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09cv298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
Five Democratic and Republican national political committees must return more than $1.7 million in contributions received from indicted financier R. Allen Stanford to his court-appointed receiver, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas today awarded final judgment in favor of receiver Ralph Janvey, who is marshalling assets to repay investors allegedly swindled of more than $7 billion through what the government claims was a Stanford-directed Ponzi scheme.
“Courts adhere to the principle that equality is equity in dealing with the aftermath of an imploded Ponzi scheme,” Godbey wrote in a 61-page ruling. “In disgorging the Stanford defendants’ contributions, the political committees will endure no greater hardship than that suffered by other innocent victims of the Stanford defendants’ Ponzi scheme who must do the same.”
Godbey ordered the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Inc. to return $1,037,347; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Inc., $218,273; the National Republican Congressional Committee, $260,291; the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $90,960; and the Republican National Committee, $140,241. The sums represent the donations the groups got from Stanford plus prejudgment interest, according to Godbey’s order.
Stanford, 61, denies all wrongdoing in connection with civil and criminal allegations that that he defrauded investors through the sale of bogus certificates of deposit sold by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.
‘Important Victory’
“This ruling represents an important victory for the Stanford receivership and the thousands of victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme,” Kevin Sadler, lead attorney for Janvey, said in an e-mail today. “Unfortunately, the political committees waged a costly campaign to thwart the receiver’s efforts to recover the monies they received from the Stanford Ponzi scheme. The receiver will be filing appropriate papers with the court to recover the hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and expenses he was forced to incur in this case.”
Mark Shank, a lawyer for the Republican committees, didn’t immediately return voice or e-mail messages seeking comment on today’s ruling.
“We disagree with the court’s ruling and are weighing our options,’’ Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an e-mail.
The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09cr342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09cv298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
SEC concludes Stanford is guilty
Securities News Network
Monday 20 June 2011
Sir Allen Stanford has not been convicted of any offence. Nor have any regulatory proceedings been concluded against him. Yet the USA's Securities and Exchange Commission has decided that he ran a Ponzi scheme and that "investors" are entitled to certain statutory protections.
A statement issued by the SEC on 15th June says " The Securities and Exchange Commission today concluded that certain individuals who invested money through the Stanford Group Company – a U.S. broker-dealer owned and used by Allen Stanford to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme – are entitled to the protections of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA)."
The commission does not, in fact, appear to have concluded any formal inquiry. Instead it appears to be relying on a report by a Court Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Group Company that there were a number of companies which “were operated in a highly interconnected fashion, with a core objective of selling” the CDs.
Among other things, the receiver also says that “[c]orporate separateness was not respected within the Stanford empire. ... Money was transferred from entity to entity as needed, irrespective of legitimate business need. Ultimately, all of the fund transfers supported the Ponzi scheme in one way or another, or benefited Allen Stanford personally.”
It is the finality of the wording that causes concern: "the" features strongly, juxtaposed with "Ponzi scheme."
The SEC does - almost - recognise that there has been no finding in any court of competent jurisdiction that there was in fact a Ponzi scheme: indeed, the best it can do is to refer to its early filings: "According to its 2009 complaint, the SEC alleged that Allen Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme in which certain investors were sold certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL) through the Stanford Group Company (SGC). SGC is a SIPC Member."
This is nothing more than an attempt to use its own earlier filings to bolster its current statements.The analysis upon which the SEC bases its current statements can be found (pdf) at http://sec.gov/rules/other/2011/stanford-sipa-analysis.pdf.
The fact remains that Stanford remains not guilty and not subject to any formal finding of impropriety within the regulatory regime. The SEC's actions and the wording it has adopted are tainting the jury pool for the eventual criminal trial, and producing a background which prosecutors will be able to use to great prejudicial effect.
Of course, if there was a ponzi scheme (and that remains uncertain although there are sufficient grounds for suspicion of some kind of impropriety), then victims should be able to use the full weight of the law to protect themselves against loss. But the other side of the coin is that Stanford is entitled to a clean run at a defence.
The SEC, by its choice of language, is seriously undermining that entitlement
Monday 20 June 2011
Sir Allen Stanford has not been convicted of any offence. Nor have any regulatory proceedings been concluded against him. Yet the USA's Securities and Exchange Commission has decided that he ran a Ponzi scheme and that "investors" are entitled to certain statutory protections.
A statement issued by the SEC on 15th June says " The Securities and Exchange Commission today concluded that certain individuals who invested money through the Stanford Group Company – a U.S. broker-dealer owned and used by Allen Stanford to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme – are entitled to the protections of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA)."
The commission does not, in fact, appear to have concluded any formal inquiry. Instead it appears to be relying on a report by a Court Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Group Company that there were a number of companies which “were operated in a highly interconnected fashion, with a core objective of selling” the CDs.
Among other things, the receiver also says that “[c]orporate separateness was not respected within the Stanford empire. ... Money was transferred from entity to entity as needed, irrespective of legitimate business need. Ultimately, all of the fund transfers supported the Ponzi scheme in one way or another, or benefited Allen Stanford personally.”
It is the finality of the wording that causes concern: "the" features strongly, juxtaposed with "Ponzi scheme."
The SEC does - almost - recognise that there has been no finding in any court of competent jurisdiction that there was in fact a Ponzi scheme: indeed, the best it can do is to refer to its early filings: "According to its 2009 complaint, the SEC alleged that Allen Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme in which certain investors were sold certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL) through the Stanford Group Company (SGC). SGC is a SIPC Member."
This is nothing more than an attempt to use its own earlier filings to bolster its current statements.The analysis upon which the SEC bases its current statements can be found (pdf) at http://sec.gov/rules/other/2011/stanford-sipa-analysis.pdf.
The fact remains that Stanford remains not guilty and not subject to any formal finding of impropriety within the regulatory regime. The SEC's actions and the wording it has adopted are tainting the jury pool for the eventual criminal trial, and producing a background which prosecutors will be able to use to great prejudicial effect.
Of course, if there was a ponzi scheme (and that remains uncertain although there are sufficient grounds for suspicion of some kind of impropriety), then victims should be able to use the full weight of the law to protect themselves against loss. But the other side of the coin is that Stanford is entitled to a clean run at a defence.
The SEC, by its choice of language, is seriously undermining that entitlement
Monday, 20 June 2011
Stanford Receiver Sues Libyan Fund for $55 Million Withdrawn, Lawyer Says
Source:Bloomburg
R. Allen Stanford’s court-appointed receiver sued the Libyan government wealth fund for $55 million he claims the state withdrew from Stanford’s alleged Ponzi scheme before it collapsed in early 2009, according to the receiver’s lawyer.
Ralph S. Janvey, Stanford’s receiver, also won a temporary freeze on some Libyan government bank accounts in the U.S. until a federal judge can determine if the money should be distributed to investors allegedly swindled of more than $7 billion, said Janvey’s lead attorney, Kevin M. Sadler.
“The payments made to the Libyan defendants were fraudulent transfers, using funds which Stanford obtained by fraud from investors who purchased Stanford’s phony CDs even as the Ponzi scheme was beginning to collapse,’’ Sadler said today by e-mail.
Janvey’s suit was filed under seal June 3 in U.S. District Court in Dallas, Sadler said. The lawsuit couldn’t be independently confirmed using the court’s electronic docket.
Stanford, 61, denies all allegations of wrongdoing. He previously said he met with Libyan sovereign-wealth fund officials shortly before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seized his operations on suspicion of fraud in February 2009.
The Libyans withdrew $12 million of their Stanford investment immediately after this meeting, which occurred in Libya “just three weeks before the SEC filed suit,’’ Sadler said in today’s e-mail.
Order to Freeze
Janvey obtained a court order on June 6 freezing $55 million in Libyan assets in U.S. bank accounts, pending a December hearing before U.S. District Judge David Godbey, Sadler said. The judge oversees the SEC’s case against Stanford and several of his companies.
Stanford faces 14 criminal charges that he deceived investors about the safety and oversight of certificates of deposit sold by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He is in a prison hospital unit in Butner, North Carolina, until he completes rehabilitation from a prescription-drug dependency he acquired in jail.
The former billionaire has been in custody as a flight risk since his indictment in June 2009. His attorneys have asked for a delay in his criminal trial, now scheduled for September in Houston federal court, until he is found competent to assist in his defense.
The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
R. Allen Stanford’s court-appointed receiver sued the Libyan government wealth fund for $55 million he claims the state withdrew from Stanford’s alleged Ponzi scheme before it collapsed in early 2009, according to the receiver’s lawyer.
Ralph S. Janvey, Stanford’s receiver, also won a temporary freeze on some Libyan government bank accounts in the U.S. until a federal judge can determine if the money should be distributed to investors allegedly swindled of more than $7 billion, said Janvey’s lead attorney, Kevin M. Sadler.
“The payments made to the Libyan defendants were fraudulent transfers, using funds which Stanford obtained by fraud from investors who purchased Stanford’s phony CDs even as the Ponzi scheme was beginning to collapse,’’ Sadler said today by e-mail.
Janvey’s suit was filed under seal June 3 in U.S. District Court in Dallas, Sadler said. The lawsuit couldn’t be independently confirmed using the court’s electronic docket.
Stanford, 61, denies all allegations of wrongdoing. He previously said he met with Libyan sovereign-wealth fund officials shortly before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seized his operations on suspicion of fraud in February 2009.
The Libyans withdrew $12 million of their Stanford investment immediately after this meeting, which occurred in Libya “just three weeks before the SEC filed suit,’’ Sadler said in today’s e-mail.
Order to Freeze
Janvey obtained a court order on June 6 freezing $55 million in Libyan assets in U.S. bank accounts, pending a December hearing before U.S. District Judge David Godbey, Sadler said. The judge oversees the SEC’s case against Stanford and several of his companies.
Stanford faces 14 criminal charges that he deceived investors about the safety and oversight of certificates of deposit sold by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He is in a prison hospital unit in Butner, North Carolina, until he completes rehabilitation from a prescription-drug dependency he acquired in jail.
The former billionaire has been in custody as a flight risk since his indictment in June 2009. His attorneys have asked for a delay in his criminal trial, now scheduled for September in Houston federal court, until he is found competent to assist in his defense.
The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
Compensating Stanford’s Investors
Source: NewYork Times
The Securities and Exchange Commission froze the assets of R. Allen Stanford’s financial empire almost two years ago. But authorities are still figuring out whether investors can get compensated for some of their losses
The S.E.C. is pushing for investors who bought more than $7.2 billion in allegedly bogus certificates of deposit from Mr. Stanford’s Antiguan bank to be treated as brokerage customers by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. If that happens, clients could get at least some of their money back.
SIPC provides a measure of protection for customers when a broker becomes insolvent, paying up to $500,000 per customer that includes $250,000 in cash. The program, which is not intended to provide insurance against fraud, only covers the brokerage firm’s customers and not those who dealt with an affiliate, like an offshore bank, that is not qualified to participate in the program.
Mr. Stanford’s financial empire included a brokerage firm, called the Stanford Group Company, which promoted the C.D.’s to investors by promising above-market returns. The actual issuer of the C.D.’s, however, was his Antiguan bank, Stanford International Bank. The entity was not a broker-dealer and so it fell outside of the protections afforded by SIPC.
In a letter sent in August 2009 to the trustee appointed to gather assets for Mr. Stanford’s investors, SIPC denied that it was required to provide any coverage because the C.D.’s were bought from the offshore bank, even though the brokerage arm marketed them. The agency explained that the Stanford Group Company was merely an “introducing” broker that was not responsible for maintaining any securities on behalf of customers. As such, the agency was not responsible when the Antiguan bank collapsed and the C.D.’s became worthless.
The S.E.C. took a different position last week. In an analysis of the case , the S.E.C. told SIPC that it was putting form over substance by focusing solely on which of the various entities controlled by Mr. Stanford had issued the C.D.’s. Under the S.E.C.’s rationale, Mr. Stanford ignored those legal niceties and treated the various companies as one source of money for his alleged Ponzi scheme, taking money from each as if it were his personal piggy bank. “Credible evidence shows that Stanford structured the various entities in his financial empire,” according the S.E.C. “for the principal, if not sole, purpose of carrying out a single fraudulent Ponzi scheme.”
The S.E.C. asserted in its analysis that SIPC should cover investors. In effect, the agency said Mr. Stanford effectively stole from customers of the brokerage firm by selling worthless C.D.’s, much like the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff in which fictitious securities totaling $64 billion were credited to client accounts when it collapsed.
But the S.E.C. also makes it clear that any calculation of victim claims should not be based on the purported value of the C.D.’s reflected on the account statements provided by Stanford International Bank, but instead only the actual amount invested. Not surprisingly, this is the same position taken by the trustee appointed to liquidate Mr. Madoff’s firm, Irving H. Picard, and SIPC in dealing with investors in that Ponzi scheme.
The S.E.C. urged SIPC to initiate a liquidation proceeding like the one undertaken by Mr. Picard, including the appointment of a trustee to weigh claims from investors. This is more than just a request, however, because the S.E.C. has supervisory authority over SIPC. The last line of its analysis was a rather unsubtle hint to compensate investors:
“In a further exercise of its discretion, the Commission has authorized its staff to file in district court an application under Section 11(b) of [Securities Investor Protection Act] to compel SIPC to initiate a liquidation proceeding in the event SIPC refuses to do so.”
If SIPC does liquidate Mr. Stanford’s brokerage operation, not all investors may benefit, as some victims of Mr. Madoff are discovering.
Mr. Picard successfully argued in the federal bankruptcy court that those who withdrew more from their accounts with Mr. Madoff than they invested – the so-called “net winners” – are subject to clawback suits to repay their profits and have no claim for losses. The “net winners” issue was argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in March, and a decision is likely to come in the near future.
It is not clear whether there were any “net winners” among Mr. Stanford’s investors. But there is a good possibility that some investors closed their accounts and took profits before the scheme collapsed. Any investors who profited on the C.D.’s from the Antiguan bank could face a similar situation to the “net winners” targeted by Mr. Picard.
I expect there to be similar clawback suits filed if SIPC does accede to the S.E.C.’s request. Given how contentious the Mr. Picard’s lawsuits against “net winners” have been, we can expect more of the same if SIPC liquidates Mr. Stanford’s brokerage firm.
The S.E.C.’s announcement had another salutary effect. Just a day before it issued its analysis, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, placed a hold on the nominations of two commissioners to the S.E.C. until it announced its position on whether the investors were protected by SIPC.
The hold on the nominations has been removed, and everyone – except perhaps SIPC – is a bit happier. But when Mr. Stanford’s investors will receive some compensation for their losses is still unclear because a liquidation is only the start of the process, as the Madoff case shows.
The Securities and Exchange Commission froze the assets of R. Allen Stanford’s financial empire almost two years ago. But authorities are still figuring out whether investors can get compensated for some of their losses
The S.E.C. is pushing for investors who bought more than $7.2 billion in allegedly bogus certificates of deposit from Mr. Stanford’s Antiguan bank to be treated as brokerage customers by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. If that happens, clients could get at least some of their money back.
SIPC provides a measure of protection for customers when a broker becomes insolvent, paying up to $500,000 per customer that includes $250,000 in cash. The program, which is not intended to provide insurance against fraud, only covers the brokerage firm’s customers and not those who dealt with an affiliate, like an offshore bank, that is not qualified to participate in the program.
Mr. Stanford’s financial empire included a brokerage firm, called the Stanford Group Company, which promoted the C.D.’s to investors by promising above-market returns. The actual issuer of the C.D.’s, however, was his Antiguan bank, Stanford International Bank. The entity was not a broker-dealer and so it fell outside of the protections afforded by SIPC.
In a letter sent in August 2009 to the trustee appointed to gather assets for Mr. Stanford’s investors, SIPC denied that it was required to provide any coverage because the C.D.’s were bought from the offshore bank, even though the brokerage arm marketed them. The agency explained that the Stanford Group Company was merely an “introducing” broker that was not responsible for maintaining any securities on behalf of customers. As such, the agency was not responsible when the Antiguan bank collapsed and the C.D.’s became worthless.
The S.E.C. took a different position last week. In an analysis of the case , the S.E.C. told SIPC that it was putting form over substance by focusing solely on which of the various entities controlled by Mr. Stanford had issued the C.D.’s. Under the S.E.C.’s rationale, Mr. Stanford ignored those legal niceties and treated the various companies as one source of money for his alleged Ponzi scheme, taking money from each as if it were his personal piggy bank. “Credible evidence shows that Stanford structured the various entities in his financial empire,” according the S.E.C. “for the principal, if not sole, purpose of carrying out a single fraudulent Ponzi scheme.”
The S.E.C. asserted in its analysis that SIPC should cover investors. In effect, the agency said Mr. Stanford effectively stole from customers of the brokerage firm by selling worthless C.D.’s, much like the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff in which fictitious securities totaling $64 billion were credited to client accounts when it collapsed.
But the S.E.C. also makes it clear that any calculation of victim claims should not be based on the purported value of the C.D.’s reflected on the account statements provided by Stanford International Bank, but instead only the actual amount invested. Not surprisingly, this is the same position taken by the trustee appointed to liquidate Mr. Madoff’s firm, Irving H. Picard, and SIPC in dealing with investors in that Ponzi scheme.
The S.E.C. urged SIPC to initiate a liquidation proceeding like the one undertaken by Mr. Picard, including the appointment of a trustee to weigh claims from investors. This is more than just a request, however, because the S.E.C. has supervisory authority over SIPC. The last line of its analysis was a rather unsubtle hint to compensate investors:
“In a further exercise of its discretion, the Commission has authorized its staff to file in district court an application under Section 11(b) of [Securities Investor Protection Act] to compel SIPC to initiate a liquidation proceeding in the event SIPC refuses to do so.”
If SIPC does liquidate Mr. Stanford’s brokerage operation, not all investors may benefit, as some victims of Mr. Madoff are discovering.
Mr. Picard successfully argued in the federal bankruptcy court that those who withdrew more from their accounts with Mr. Madoff than they invested – the so-called “net winners” – are subject to clawback suits to repay their profits and have no claim for losses. The “net winners” issue was argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in March, and a decision is likely to come in the near future.
It is not clear whether there were any “net winners” among Mr. Stanford’s investors. But there is a good possibility that some investors closed their accounts and took profits before the scheme collapsed. Any investors who profited on the C.D.’s from the Antiguan bank could face a similar situation to the “net winners” targeted by Mr. Picard.
I expect there to be similar clawback suits filed if SIPC does accede to the S.E.C.’s request. Given how contentious the Mr. Picard’s lawsuits against “net winners” have been, we can expect more of the same if SIPC liquidates Mr. Stanford’s brokerage firm.
The S.E.C.’s announcement had another salutary effect. Just a day before it issued its analysis, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, placed a hold on the nominations of two commissioners to the S.E.C. until it announced its position on whether the investors were protected by SIPC.
The hold on the nominations has been removed, and everyone – except perhaps SIPC – is a bit happier. But when Mr. Stanford’s investors will receive some compensation for their losses is still unclear because a liquidation is only the start of the process, as the Madoff case shows.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Some (But Not All) Ponzi Scheme Investors Entitled to Protections of SIPA
Source: Forbes (Timothy Spangler)
This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) held that certain individuals who invested money through the Stanford Group Company, the US broker-dealer that was owned and used by Allen Stanford in connection with his Ponzi scheme, will be entitled to the protections of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA). The SEC alleged that Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme in which certain investors were sold certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL) through the Stanford Group Company (SGC).
The SEC exercised its discretionary authority under SIPA, and requested that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) initiate a court proceeding under SIPA to liquidate the broker-dealer. SGC is a SIPC Member.
The SEC decided that investors with brokerage accounts at SGC, who purchased the CDs through the broker-dealer, qualify for “customer” status under SIPA. The report of the court appointed-receiver for SGC had noted that corporate separateness was not respected by Stanford, and that many of his companies “were operated in a highly interconnected fashion, with a core objective of selling” the CDs.
A SIPA liquidation proceeding will allow investors with accounts at SGC to file claims with a trustee selected by SIPC. The trustee would decide whether the investors have “customer” claims that are protected by the statute. An investor who disagreed with the trustee’s determination could seek court review.
This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) held that certain individuals who invested money through the Stanford Group Company, the US broker-dealer that was owned and used by Allen Stanford in connection with his Ponzi scheme, will be entitled to the protections of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA). The SEC alleged that Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme in which certain investors were sold certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL) through the Stanford Group Company (SGC).
The SEC exercised its discretionary authority under SIPA, and requested that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) initiate a court proceeding under SIPA to liquidate the broker-dealer. SGC is a SIPC Member.
The SEC decided that investors with brokerage accounts at SGC, who purchased the CDs through the broker-dealer, qualify for “customer” status under SIPA. The report of the court appointed-receiver for SGC had noted that corporate separateness was not respected by Stanford, and that many of his companies “were operated in a highly interconnected fashion, with a core objective of selling” the CDs.
A SIPA liquidation proceeding will allow investors with accounts at SGC to file claims with a trustee selected by SIPC. The trustee would decide whether the investors have “customer” claims that are protected by the statute. An investor who disagreed with the trustee’s determination could seek court review.
Certain Stanford Investors Get Some SEC Support
Source:247wallst.com
It looks like at least some of the investors who were screwed by Stanford may get to recover some assets. This is not meant to be a catch-all recovery nor for all investors, at least not the way we have read into a release from the SEC today. The news release from the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that “certain individuals who invested money through the Stanford Group Company – a U.S. broker-dealer owned and used by Allen Stanford to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme – are entitled to the protections of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA).”
Before thinking this encompasses all assets for all customers, that might not be the case. The SEC went on to note, “on the specific facts of this case, investors with brokerage accounts at SGC who purchased the CDs through the broker-dealer qualify for protected “customer” status under SIPA.” This covers Stanford Group Company that was owned by Allen Stanford “to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme.”
Today’s news out of the SEC noted that these investors were sold certificates of deposit, or CDs, which were issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd. through the Stanford Group Company, and Stanford Group Company is a SIPC Member.
The SEC determined that customers’ claims should be based on their net investment in the fraudulent CDs used to carry out the Ponzi scheme. A SIPA liquidation proceeding would allow investors with accounts at SGC to file claims with a trustee selected by SIPC. Unfortunately for investors, it appears to be up to the trustee to decide whether investors have customer claims protected by a statute. Those who disagree with the trustee’s determination could seek a court review.
Lastly, the SEC noted, “The Commission has authorized its staff to file an action in federal district court under SIPA to compel SIPC to initiate a liquidation proceeding in the event SIPC does not do so.”
The SEC also provided a massive support document titled ANALYSIS OF SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT COVERAGE FOR STANFORD GROUP COMPANY.
What this translates to certainly does not sound immediately like a full restitution. The analysis in the formal letter from the SEC to SIPC noted that the SEC “is making a formal request to the SIPC Board of Directors to take the necessary steps to institute a SIPA liquidation proceeding of SGC. Should the Board refuse to take such action, the Commission has authorized its Division of Enforcement to bring an action in district court against SIPC to compel the institution of a proceeding to liquidate SGC under SIPA.”
A separate release from SIPC noted, “The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”), which maintains a special reserve fund mandated by Congress to protect the customers of insolvent brokerage firms, said that it will analyze the referral provided today by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) with respect to the Stanford Group Company, operated by Robert Allen Stanford.”
Unfortunately, this is one of those situations that caught many investors off balance and has killed more than a few fortunes. Any and all Stanford investors will want to look far deeper than the amount of coverage we can give to this tragic topic.
It looks like at least some of the investors who were screwed by Stanford may get to recover some assets. This is not meant to be a catch-all recovery nor for all investors, at least not the way we have read into a release from the SEC today. The news release from the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that “certain individuals who invested money through the Stanford Group Company – a U.S. broker-dealer owned and used by Allen Stanford to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme – are entitled to the protections of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA).”
Before thinking this encompasses all assets for all customers, that might not be the case. The SEC went on to note, “on the specific facts of this case, investors with brokerage accounts at SGC who purchased the CDs through the broker-dealer qualify for protected “customer” status under SIPA.” This covers Stanford Group Company that was owned by Allen Stanford “to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme.”
Today’s news out of the SEC noted that these investors were sold certificates of deposit, or CDs, which were issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd. through the Stanford Group Company, and Stanford Group Company is a SIPC Member.
The SEC determined that customers’ claims should be based on their net investment in the fraudulent CDs used to carry out the Ponzi scheme. A SIPA liquidation proceeding would allow investors with accounts at SGC to file claims with a trustee selected by SIPC. Unfortunately for investors, it appears to be up to the trustee to decide whether investors have customer claims protected by a statute. Those who disagree with the trustee’s determination could seek a court review.
Lastly, the SEC noted, “The Commission has authorized its staff to file an action in federal district court under SIPA to compel SIPC to initiate a liquidation proceeding in the event SIPC does not do so.”
The SEC also provided a massive support document titled ANALYSIS OF SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT COVERAGE FOR STANFORD GROUP COMPANY.
What this translates to certainly does not sound immediately like a full restitution. The analysis in the formal letter from the SEC to SIPC noted that the SEC “is making a formal request to the SIPC Board of Directors to take the necessary steps to institute a SIPA liquidation proceeding of SGC. Should the Board refuse to take such action, the Commission has authorized its Division of Enforcement to bring an action in district court against SIPC to compel the institution of a proceeding to liquidate SGC under SIPA.”
A separate release from SIPC noted, “The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”), which maintains a special reserve fund mandated by Congress to protect the customers of insolvent brokerage firms, said that it will analyze the referral provided today by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) with respect to the Stanford Group Company, operated by Robert Allen Stanford.”
Unfortunately, this is one of those situations that caught many investors off balance and has killed more than a few fortunes. Any and all Stanford investors will want to look far deeper than the amount of coverage we can give to this tragic topic.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
SEC Concludes That Certain Stanford Ponzi Scheme Investors Are Entitled to Protections of SIPA
Washington, D.C., June 15, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today concluded that certain individuals who invested money through the Stanford Group Company – a U.S. broker-dealer owned and used by Allen Stanford to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme – are entitled to the protections of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA).
In exercising its discretionary authority under SIPA and based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission asked the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to initiate a court proceeding under SIPA to liquidate the broker-dealer.
According to its 2009 complaint, the SEC alleged that Allen Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme in which certain investors were sold certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL) through the Stanford Group Company (SGC). SGC is a SIPC Member.
In an analysis provided to SIPC, the SEC explains that, on the specific facts of this case, investors with brokerage accounts at SGC who purchased the CDs through the broker-dealer qualify for protected “customer” status under SIPA.
In reaching its determination, the SEC cited the conclusions in the report of the court appointed-receiver for SGC, who noted that the many companies controlled and directly or indirectly owned by Stanford “were operated in a highly interconnected fashion, with a core objective of selling” the CDs.
Among other things, the receiver also noted that “[c]orporate separateness was not respected within the Stanford empire. ... Money was transferred from entity to entity as needed, irrespective of legitimate business need. Ultimately, all of the fund transfers supported the Ponzi scheme in one way or another, or benefitted Allen Stanford personally.”
The Commission further determined that, in light of all of the facts and circumstances in this case, the customers’ claims should be based on their net investment in the fraudulent CDs used to carry out the Ponzi scheme.
A SIPA liquidation proceeding would allow investors with accounts at SGC to file claims with a trustee selected by SIPC. The trustee would decide whether the investors have “customer” claims that are protected by the statute. An investor who disagreed with the trustee’s determination could seek court review.
The Commission has authorized its staff to file an action in federal district court under SIPA to compel SIPC to initiate a liquidation proceeding in the event SIPC does not do so.
In exercising its discretionary authority under SIPA and based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission asked the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to initiate a court proceeding under SIPA to liquidate the broker-dealer.
According to its 2009 complaint, the SEC alleged that Allen Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme in which certain investors were sold certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL) through the Stanford Group Company (SGC). SGC is a SIPC Member.
In an analysis provided to SIPC, the SEC explains that, on the specific facts of this case, investors with brokerage accounts at SGC who purchased the CDs through the broker-dealer qualify for protected “customer” status under SIPA.
In reaching its determination, the SEC cited the conclusions in the report of the court appointed-receiver for SGC, who noted that the many companies controlled and directly or indirectly owned by Stanford “were operated in a highly interconnected fashion, with a core objective of selling” the CDs.
Among other things, the receiver also noted that “[c]orporate separateness was not respected within the Stanford empire. ... Money was transferred from entity to entity as needed, irrespective of legitimate business need. Ultimately, all of the fund transfers supported the Ponzi scheme in one way or another, or benefitted Allen Stanford personally.”
The Commission further determined that, in light of all of the facts and circumstances in this case, the customers’ claims should be based on their net investment in the fraudulent CDs used to carry out the Ponzi scheme.
A SIPA liquidation proceeding would allow investors with accounts at SGC to file claims with a trustee selected by SIPC. The trustee would decide whether the investors have “customer” claims that are protected by the statute. An investor who disagreed with the trustee’s determination could seek court review.
The Commission has authorized its staff to file an action in federal district court under SIPA to compel SIPC to initiate a liquidation proceeding in the event SIPC does not do so.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Deadline for Stanford investors less than a month away
Antigua (Antigua Observer): The Stanford International Victims Group (SIVG) is reminding non-US investors of the approaching deadline to file their claims for compensation. February 16, 2011 is the date when the statute of limitations expires for claims to be filed under the US Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The SIVG represents investors from outside the US who were burned in Allen Stanford’s failed $7 billion Ponzi scheme, for which the businessman now languishes in a Texas prison awaiting trial.
The international victims have so far met with little success in their attempts to seek compensation via the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). This is partly because they are vigorously opposed by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC), which is looking after the interests of only the US investors. SVC holds the view that interventions on behalf of the international victims distracts attention from the primary US cause and is likely to delay settlement. The SIPC itself is also resistant to the idea of paying out compensation to the international victims, most of whom were not registered with the broker that is recognised as legitimate by US authorities in this matter, namely the Stanford Group Company (SCG).
Only 8,000 of the 13 to 20,000 Stanford investors are eligible for cover under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) – which governs the SIPC – and these are almost all in the US. The SIPC offers compensation only up to a limit of US $500,000, regardless of the amount that may have been lost in Stanford’s alleged fraud. On the other hand, a successful claim under the SIPA would guarantee full compensation. The International Investors Group is urging non-US victims (including those in Antigua & Barbuda) to contact their attorneys as soon as possible, or the attorney submitting claims on behalf of international investors, Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Massachusetts. (January 25, 2011)
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Deadline for Stanford investors less than a month away
Source:NorthAmerica.World247.net
The Stanford International Victims Group (SIVG) is reminding non-US investors of the approaching deadline to file their claims for compensation.
February 16, 2011 is the date when the statute of limitations expires for claims to be filed under the US Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The SIVG represents investors from outside the US who were burned in Allen Stanford’s failed $ 7 billion Ponzi scheme, for which the businessman now languishes in a Texas prison awaiting trial.
The international victims have so far met with little success in their attempts to seek compensation via the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).
This is partly because they are vigorously opposed by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC), which is looking after the interests of only the US investors.
SVC holds the view that interventions on behalf of the international victims distracts attention from the primary US cause and is likely to delay settlement.
The SIPC itself is also resistant to the idea of paying out compensation to the international victims, most of whom were not registered with the broker that is recognised as legitimate by US authorities in this matter, namely the Stanford Group Company (SCG).
Only 8,000 of the 13 to 20,000 Stanford investors are eligible for cover under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) – which governs the SIPC – and these are almost all in the US.
The SIPC offers compensation only up to a limit of US $ 500,000, regardless of the amount that may have been lost in Stanford’s alleged fraud. On the other hand, a successful claim under the SIPA would guarantee full compensation.
The International Investors Group is urging non-US victims (including those in Antigua & Barbuda) to contact their attorneys as soon as possible, or the attorney submitting claims on behalf of international investors, Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The Stanford International Victims Group (SIVG) is reminding non-US investors of the approaching deadline to file their claims for compensation.
February 16, 2011 is the date when the statute of limitations expires for claims to be filed under the US Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The SIVG represents investors from outside the US who were burned in Allen Stanford’s failed $ 7 billion Ponzi scheme, for which the businessman now languishes in a Texas prison awaiting trial.
The international victims have so far met with little success in their attempts to seek compensation via the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).
This is partly because they are vigorously opposed by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC), which is looking after the interests of only the US investors.
SVC holds the view that interventions on behalf of the international victims distracts attention from the primary US cause and is likely to delay settlement.
The SIPC itself is also resistant to the idea of paying out compensation to the international victims, most of whom were not registered with the broker that is recognised as legitimate by US authorities in this matter, namely the Stanford Group Company (SCG).
Only 8,000 of the 13 to 20,000 Stanford investors are eligible for cover under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) – which governs the SIPC – and these are almost all in the US.
The SIPC offers compensation only up to a limit of US $ 500,000, regardless of the amount that may have been lost in Stanford’s alleged fraud. On the other hand, a successful claim under the SIPA would guarantee full compensation.
The International Investors Group is urging non-US victims (including those in Antigua & Barbuda) to contact their attorneys as soon as possible, or the attorney submitting claims on behalf of international investors, Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
TO STANFORD BANK INVESTORS WAITING FOR SIPC COVERAGE
There have been past allegations made by the Stanford Victims Coalition (SVC) that submitting administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) may damage their political efforts for recovery under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). They even went so far as to appeal to our attorney that SIPC cover will not only definitely be granted, but also widened to $4bn, to cover all the international investors too. We thought all these farcical arguments were in the past, but have become aware that SVC lobbying has been resurrected, following more recent comments from one group of investors.
So where does this actually leave the investors who consider they may be eligible for SIPC, and what are their chances?
Firstly, only the 8,000 Stanford investors who invested through the only SIPC registered broker-dealer, Stanford Group Company (SGC), may be eligible for cover under the SIPA, and the likelihood of widening the cover is non-existent, no matter who would have you believe otherwise. The remaining investors will be ineligible for SIPC (20,000 according to FRP, formerly Vantis, the Antiguan receiver; 13,500 according to Janvey the US receiver; they cannot even agree on how many of us were swindled).
The FTCA claims that we are campaigning for are against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not against SIPC, so investors who may be eligible for SIPC are not prejudicing their chances by filing a claim against the SEC. To state that filing claims under the FTCA may be political suicide could not be further from the truth. There is in fact the very real possibility that should enough investors file FTCA claims, the heat will be turned up on the US Department of Justice to pressure the SEC to order SIPC coverage. It will ultimately be less expensive for the US taxpayer to foot the bill once SIPC have picked up the first $1.8 billion (or $4bn depending on who you believe). One could argue, with just as much authority, that filing a claim could actually assist Stanford investors get SIPC coverage, not hinder them.
As far as the likelihood of success of SIPC goes, please be aware the Chief Counsel of the SEC has previously stated he will not order SIPA coverage for Stanford investors as he considers his order may be challenged and defeated in court by the SIPC, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Hence the SVC campaign to lobby Congress to broaden the SIPA definition of ‘customer’. Will that happen before the statute of limitations runs out? Somewhat unlikely, since there are just 24 days left. We have seen little progress since the new Congress has re-convened, and remember, all the unsuccessful bills from last year, including the very welcome contribution from Senator Culberson, are now time expired.
And what did the Chairman of SIPC, Stephen Harbeck, tell Congress about the proposed change to SIPA to broaden the definition of ‘customer’? In his letter of August 25th 2010, to the Congressional sub-committee who proposed the amendment he stated:
"[W]e believe that the Amendment is inconsistent with SIPA's history, purpose, and provisions, and if passed, would have serious consequences for the investing public and securities broker-dealers."
"Under these facts, if a fictitious construct is applied such that investors in Stanford Bank CDs are deemed to be "customers" under SIPA with an account at Stanford Broker-Dealer, and are deemed to be eligible to recover their net investments in the Stanford Ponzi scheme in a SIPA liquidation of Stanford Broker-Dealer, it is virtually certain that satisfaction of their claims would exhaust the SIPC Fund."
In his words, even if the amendment to the Act was passed, SIPC would have insufficient funds to pay the Stanford victims (notwithstanding the Madoff victims who are also still waiting for SIPC to pay out, and they are eligible). As Mr Harbeck is still in his job, presumably he was not among the SEC staff caught with their pants down, watching porn on their laptops at work, instead of keeping their otherwise idle hands busy and investigating Stanford.
There have also been other requests from the SVC , both to our attorney, and directly to some of the investor groups, asking them to wait until the last minute to file, thus exposing investors to potential last minute problems of completeness, delivery delays, or other force majure. The Eastern seaboard is currently experiencing snow storms and blizzards disrupting business, and postal services, for example.
Perhaps this is a worthy attempt to give Congress and the SEC as much time as possible to do the right thing, but be aware these are two of the most notoriously slow bureaucracies in the US. Many investors who once trusted the SEC, and were swindled out of their hard earned life savings in return, may never trust them to come through again, in particular now the stakes are so high.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled some time ago that an investor may not bring a suit against SIPC to compel them to initiate a liquidation. So, there is nothing any attorney can do to help Stanford investors gain SIPC.
'We have been reading about the quest for the holy grail of SIPC fortwo years now, and it still appears no nearer, whereas the opportunityto file a protective claim against the SEC under FTCA expires in just24 days.
It is a matter of fact that FTCA claims are currently being processed and will be submitted before the Statute of Limitation expires, regardless of whether SIPC coverage occurs or not. These claims are for full recovery, open to all Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence, and not limited to just $500k, as is SIPC. Ultimately, the decision whether or not to file a claim under the FTCA is in the hands of each investor, but not submitting a protective claim would be foolhardy in the least.
Finally we should all remember these inopportune and unforgettable words from Angela Kogutt, Founder and Director of the SVC, shortly before she inconscionably abandoned all the non-US investors, within days of being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee:
“Just so it’s clear, I’m not giving up on the SVC but I am simply going to… represent just the US victims. I will now….limit my efforts to benefit only the 8,000 SGC customers…I haven't met one member of Congress who would go for giving even US citizens who have been severely damaged by the government’s negligence a tax-funded bailout…..The reality is US citizens have no obligation to pay for the private investment losses for investors from around the world…an ungrateful and delusional bunch…who are doing great damage to the recovery efforts of SVC…Just because the US has money and the SEC has admitted to its horrendous mistakes does not mean the US taxpayers should pay for the losses that resulted… I am a US citizen …and have a lot better feel for how things work….and don’t want anyone doing something that hurts what we have so carefully done this past year in Washington…..My hope is that the recent Gag Order prevents these radicals from going too far.
So now we all know where the SVC stands. Fortunately we were not gagged, and the Statute of Limitations has not been allowed to slip quietly by.
FTCA claims take several days to process and must be submitted correctly and timely before the deadline of 16th February 2011, when the Statute of Limitations expires or Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International investors: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of this campaign and the various arguments, please register for our free and private investor’s forum, which is available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
or more information can be obtained on the Stanford Forgotten Victims blog at
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com/
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group
So where does this actually leave the investors who consider they may be eligible for SIPC, and what are their chances?
Firstly, only the 8,000 Stanford investors who invested through the only SIPC registered broker-dealer, Stanford Group Company (SGC), may be eligible for cover under the SIPA, and the likelihood of widening the cover is non-existent, no matter who would have you believe otherwise. The remaining investors will be ineligible for SIPC (20,000 according to FRP, formerly Vantis, the Antiguan receiver; 13,500 according to Janvey the US receiver; they cannot even agree on how many of us were swindled).
The FTCA claims that we are campaigning for are against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not against SIPC, so investors who may be eligible for SIPC are not prejudicing their chances by filing a claim against the SEC. To state that filing claims under the FTCA may be political suicide could not be further from the truth. There is in fact the very real possibility that should enough investors file FTCA claims, the heat will be turned up on the US Department of Justice to pressure the SEC to order SIPC coverage. It will ultimately be less expensive for the US taxpayer to foot the bill once SIPC have picked up the first $1.8 billion (or $4bn depending on who you believe). One could argue, with just as much authority, that filing a claim could actually assist Stanford investors get SIPC coverage, not hinder them.
As far as the likelihood of success of SIPC goes, please be aware the Chief Counsel of the SEC has previously stated he will not order SIPA coverage for Stanford investors as he considers his order may be challenged and defeated in court by the SIPC, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Hence the SVC campaign to lobby Congress to broaden the SIPA definition of ‘customer’. Will that happen before the statute of limitations runs out? Somewhat unlikely, since there are just 24 days left. We have seen little progress since the new Congress has re-convened, and remember, all the unsuccessful bills from last year, including the very welcome contribution from Senator Culberson, are now time expired.
And what did the Chairman of SIPC, Stephen Harbeck, tell Congress about the proposed change to SIPA to broaden the definition of ‘customer’? In his letter of August 25th 2010, to the Congressional sub-committee who proposed the amendment he stated:
"[W]e believe that the Amendment is inconsistent with SIPA's history, purpose, and provisions, and if passed, would have serious consequences for the investing public and securities broker-dealers."
"Under these facts, if a fictitious construct is applied such that investors in Stanford Bank CDs are deemed to be "customers" under SIPA with an account at Stanford Broker-Dealer, and are deemed to be eligible to recover their net investments in the Stanford Ponzi scheme in a SIPA liquidation of Stanford Broker-Dealer, it is virtually certain that satisfaction of their claims would exhaust the SIPC Fund."
In his words, even if the amendment to the Act was passed, SIPC would have insufficient funds to pay the Stanford victims (notwithstanding the Madoff victims who are also still waiting for SIPC to pay out, and they are eligible). As Mr Harbeck is still in his job, presumably he was not among the SEC staff caught with their pants down, watching porn on their laptops at work, instead of keeping their otherwise idle hands busy and investigating Stanford.
There have also been other requests from the SVC , both to our attorney, and directly to some of the investor groups, asking them to wait until the last minute to file, thus exposing investors to potential last minute problems of completeness, delivery delays, or other force majure. The Eastern seaboard is currently experiencing snow storms and blizzards disrupting business, and postal services, for example.
Perhaps this is a worthy attempt to give Congress and the SEC as much time as possible to do the right thing, but be aware these are two of the most notoriously slow bureaucracies in the US. Many investors who once trusted the SEC, and were swindled out of their hard earned life savings in return, may never trust them to come through again, in particular now the stakes are so high.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled some time ago that an investor may not bring a suit against SIPC to compel them to initiate a liquidation. So, there is nothing any attorney can do to help Stanford investors gain SIPC.
'We have been reading about the quest for the holy grail of SIPC fortwo years now, and it still appears no nearer, whereas the opportunityto file a protective claim against the SEC under FTCA expires in just24 days.
It is a matter of fact that FTCA claims are currently being processed and will be submitted before the Statute of Limitation expires, regardless of whether SIPC coverage occurs or not. These claims are for full recovery, open to all Stanford investors, irrespective of nationality, or place of residence, and not limited to just $500k, as is SIPC. Ultimately, the decision whether or not to file a claim under the FTCA is in the hands of each investor, but not submitting a protective claim would be foolhardy in the least.
Finally we should all remember these inopportune and unforgettable words from Angela Kogutt, Founder and Director of the SVC, shortly before she inconscionably abandoned all the non-US investors, within days of being appointed to the Stanford Investors Committee:
“Just so it’s clear, I’m not giving up on the SVC but I am simply going to… represent just the US victims. I will now….limit my efforts to benefit only the 8,000 SGC customers…I haven't met one member of Congress who would go for giving even US citizens who have been severely damaged by the government’s negligence a tax-funded bailout…..The reality is US citizens have no obligation to pay for the private investment losses for investors from around the world…an ungrateful and delusional bunch…who are doing great damage to the recovery efforts of SVC…Just because the US has money and the SEC has admitted to its horrendous mistakes does not mean the US taxpayers should pay for the losses that resulted… I am a US citizen …and have a lot better feel for how things work….and don’t want anyone doing something that hurts what we have so carefully done this past year in Washington…..My hope is that the recent Gag Order prevents these radicals from going too far.
So now we all know where the SVC stands. Fortunately we were not gagged, and the Statute of Limitations has not been allowed to slip quietly by.
FTCA claims take several days to process and must be submitted correctly and timely before the deadline of 16th February 2011, when the Statute of Limitations expires or Stanford investors will be denied any recovery from the US government, forever.
Any Stanford investors who have not yet decided, should contact their attorney at their earliest opportunity, or the attorney submitting the FTCA claims on behalf the Stanford International investors: Kachroo Legal Services of Cambridge, Mass, who already have considerable experience of submitting claims on behalf of the Madoff investors. Email: info@kachroolegal.com
Should any Stanford investors wish for more detail of this campaign and the various arguments, please register for our free and private investor’s forum, which is available to all bona-fide investors in the failed Stanford Financial Group: http://svg.creatuforo.com/profile.php?mode=register
or more information can be obtained on the Stanford Forgotten Victims blog at
http://stanfordsforgottenvictims.blogspot.com/
Written by David Brent
For Stanford International Victims Group