Reuters
3:24 p.m. EST, December 6, 2011
A senator is calling on federal securities regulators to take legal action against a brokerage industry-backed fund for failing to cover claims for the victims of Allen Stanford's alleged Ponzi scheme.
Republican Senator David Vitter, a Senate Banking Committee member, said that the Securities and Exchange Commission needs to compel the Securities Investor Protection Corp to take action because victims have now been waiting since Stanford's arrest in 2009 for a resolution.
"Sue SIPC on behalf of the Stanford victims now," the Louisiana lawmaker said in a statement after discussing his concerns publicly during a congressional hearing.
Stanford, 61, was arrested in 2009 and faces a 14-count criminal indictment over an alleged $7 billion scheme linked to certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based bank. The SEC has also filed civil charges against him.
Investigators accused the one-time billionaire of using Ponzi scheme proceeds to fund other ventures and a lavish lifestyle that included several yachts, private jets, and homes around the world. Stanford has denied wrongdoing.
SIPC, which handles claims for investors if their brokerage fails, had previously said in 2009 that it did not believe Stanford victims who bought certificates of deposit through the U.S. brokerage arm of Stanford's company were eligible to receive compensation because the customers, rather than the brokerage, held custody of the CDs.
After two years of mulling it over, however the SEC rejected SIPC's argument in June and issued a statement that called on SIPC to institute a liquidation proceeding.
In that statement, the SEC said it would be forced to file a court action if SIPC did not comply.
SIPC's board met on September 15 to review the matter, but has still not taken any action and remains in talks with the SEC.
Spokespeople for the SEC and SIPC both declined to comment on Vitter's statement.
Showing posts with label Sue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sue. Show all posts
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Friday, 27 May 2011
Allen Stanford Investors Sue His Accounting Firm
Nearly two years after Texas financier Allen Stanford was indicted in an alleged massive Ponzi scheme, investors have just filed a $10 billion proposed class action suit against his auditor—the giant accounting firm BDO.
The suit—filed Thursday in federal court in Dallas—says BDO did not only aid and abet the $7 billion dollar fraud...it was a "co-conspirator."
“BDO’s cozy relationship with the Stanford Financial Group was steeped in conflicts of interest and required ongoing deceptive and duplicitous manipulation of the facts to allow the Ponzi scheme’s exponential growth for over a decade,” the complaint says. “The result of this deception is the loss of thousands of investors’ life savings.”
BDO not only audited Stanford's U.S. operations, it also did critical work in Antigua, where the alleged fraud was based.
Before his indictment in 2009, Stanford told CNBC about a task force he put together—including a "major accounting firm" to rewrite Antigua's banking laws.
“Back in the early '90s, I was asked by the then-government if I would put together a civilian team of professionals, which I got,” Stanford said. “Ex-FBI, ex-DEA, an ex-U.S. Attorney…a major accounting firm and others to come up with a strong, if not the strongest platform for international banking.”
Authorities and investors say that platform paved the way for the fraud. Stanford has denied wrongdoing. He faces a trial currently scheduled for September 12 on 14 criminal counts.
BDO has not had a chance to respond to the suit, but for months it has been fighting a civil subpoena for documents filed by the court-appointed receiver in the SEC’s lawsuit against Stanford.
In a court filing in April, BDO attorneys said the firm "has no clue as to what it may have done wrong." The filing called the subpoena “a fishing expedition.”
Stanford's 30-thousand investors have so far recovered just pennies on the dollar.
“BDO’s cozy relationship with the Stanford Financial Group was steeped in conflicts of interest and required ongoing deceptive and duplicitous manipulation of the facts to allow the Ponzi scheme’s exponential growth for over a decade,” the complaint says. “The result of this deception is the loss of thousands of investors’ life savings.”
BDO not only audited Stanford's U.S. operations, it also did critical work in Antigua, where the alleged fraud was based.
Before his indictment in 2009, Stanford told CNBC about a task force he put together—including a "major accounting firm" to rewrite Antigua's banking laws.
“Back in the early '90s, I was asked by the then-government if I would put together a civilian team of professionals, which I got,” Stanford said. “Ex-FBI, ex-DEA, an ex-U.S. Attorney…a major accounting firm and others to come up with a strong, if not the strongest platform for international banking.”
Authorities and investors say that platform paved the way for the fraud. Stanford has denied wrongdoing. He faces a trial currently scheduled for September 12 on 14 criminal counts.
BDO has not had a chance to respond to the suit, but for months it has been fighting a civil subpoena for documents filed by the court-appointed receiver in the SEC’s lawsuit against Stanford.
In a court filing in April, BDO attorneys said the firm "has no clue as to what it may have done wrong." The filing called the subpoena “a fishing expedition.”
Stanford's 30-thousand investors have so far recovered just pennies on the dollar.
Stanford Investors Sue Former Auditor BDO US for $10.7 Billion Over Fraud
BDO USA LLP and its parent, the ex- auditors of indicted financier R. Allen Stanford’s former company, were sued for $10.7 billion by investors claiming BDO ignored signs of potential fraud.
“Despite the pervasive fraud that infected Stanford Financial Group’s operations, BDO repeatedly issued unqualified audit opinions on its Stanford client’s annual financial statements,” Edward Snyder, a lawyer for Stanford investors, said in a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Dallas.
Stanford’s companies “needed BDO’s unqualified audit opinions to satisfy securities regulators and to continue recommending” sales of the allegedly bogus certificates of deposit at Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua, the investors said in the complaint.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulators seized Stanford’s operations in February 2009 on allegations they were involved in a “massive Ponzi scheme” that defrauded investors of more than $7 billion.
“We have yet to be served with the complaint and therefore are unable to comment at this time,” Jerry Walsh, a spokesman for BDO, said in an e-mail. “However, the fact that this complaint was not filed until now -- years after the Stanford fraud came to light and after many other investor complaints were filed -- reflects a transparent understanding that the allegations lack merit.”
Criminal Charges
Stanford, 61, has been incarcerated since June 2009 as a flight risk after he was indicted on parallel criminal fraud charges. He denies the charges and is scheduled for trial in federal court in Houston in September.
In addition to claims that auditors intentionally concealed fraudulent activity, the investors also contend four BDO executives played key roles in a Stanford-sponsored task force that assisted the Antiguan banking authorities in overhauling their banking regulations in the late 1990s, allegedly weakening them in ways that aided Stanford.
The Stanford task force rewrote Antigua’s money-laundering act “to ensure that ‘fraud’ and ‘false accounting’ did not fall under the Act’s prescribed list of violations,” the investors said. After the laws were rewritten in April 1999, the U.S. Treasury Department issued an advisory warning banks to give Antiguan financial transactions “enhanced scrutiny” because of money-laundering concerns, according to the complaint.
‘Speculative Investments’
The investors also accuse BDO auditors of ignoring signs Stanford’s company was operating as an unregistered hedge fund “illegally disguising itself as a bank.” They claim investors were sold hedge fund shares “disguised as CDs,” and that clients’ cash was pooled by Stanford’s company to make “illiquid, speculative investments” instead of the safe, liquid portfolio promised to clients.
“BDO’s cozy relationship with the Stanford Financial Group was steeped in conflicts of interest and required ongoing deception and duplicitous manipulation of the facts to enable the Ponzi scheme to grow exponentially for over a decade,” investors said in the complaint. “The result is the loss of thousands of investors’ life savings.”
The complaint, which seeks to represent all Stanford investors, was filed on behalf of three Texans who lost more than $3.2 million on certificates of deposit issued by Stanford’s Antiguan bank. They seek $10.7 billion in damages from BDO, which is what they calculate Stanford investors worldwide collectively lost on the Antiguan CDs.
The case is Wilkinson v. BDO USA LLP, 3:11-cv-1115, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
“Despite the pervasive fraud that infected Stanford Financial Group’s operations, BDO repeatedly issued unqualified audit opinions on its Stanford client’s annual financial statements,” Edward Snyder, a lawyer for Stanford investors, said in a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Dallas.
Stanford’s companies “needed BDO’s unqualified audit opinions to satisfy securities regulators and to continue recommending” sales of the allegedly bogus certificates of deposit at Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua, the investors said in the complaint.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulators seized Stanford’s operations in February 2009 on allegations they were involved in a “massive Ponzi scheme” that defrauded investors of more than $7 billion.
“We have yet to be served with the complaint and therefore are unable to comment at this time,” Jerry Walsh, a spokesman for BDO, said in an e-mail. “However, the fact that this complaint was not filed until now -- years after the Stanford fraud came to light and after many other investor complaints were filed -- reflects a transparent understanding that the allegations lack merit.”
Criminal Charges
Stanford, 61, has been incarcerated since June 2009 as a flight risk after he was indicted on parallel criminal fraud charges. He denies the charges and is scheduled for trial in federal court in Houston in September.
In addition to claims that auditors intentionally concealed fraudulent activity, the investors also contend four BDO executives played key roles in a Stanford-sponsored task force that assisted the Antiguan banking authorities in overhauling their banking regulations in the late 1990s, allegedly weakening them in ways that aided Stanford.
The Stanford task force rewrote Antigua’s money-laundering act “to ensure that ‘fraud’ and ‘false accounting’ did not fall under the Act’s prescribed list of violations,” the investors said. After the laws were rewritten in April 1999, the U.S. Treasury Department issued an advisory warning banks to give Antiguan financial transactions “enhanced scrutiny” because of money-laundering concerns, according to the complaint.
‘Speculative Investments’
The investors also accuse BDO auditors of ignoring signs Stanford’s company was operating as an unregistered hedge fund “illegally disguising itself as a bank.” They claim investors were sold hedge fund shares “disguised as CDs,” and that clients’ cash was pooled by Stanford’s company to make “illiquid, speculative investments” instead of the safe, liquid portfolio promised to clients.
“BDO’s cozy relationship with the Stanford Financial Group was steeped in conflicts of interest and required ongoing deception and duplicitous manipulation of the facts to enable the Ponzi scheme to grow exponentially for over a decade,” investors said in the complaint. “The result is the loss of thousands of investors’ life savings.”
The complaint, which seeks to represent all Stanford investors, was filed on behalf of three Texans who lost more than $3.2 million on certificates of deposit issued by Stanford’s Antiguan bank. They seek $10.7 billion in damages from BDO, which is what they calculate Stanford investors worldwide collectively lost on the Antiguan CDs.
The case is Wilkinson v. BDO USA LLP, 3:11-cv-1115, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
Sunday, 17 April 2011
SEC Chief Won't Offer Any False Hopes
Mary Schapiro had this to say after running the Securities and Exchange for more than two years: "I'd like to move beyond the question of whether regulation is necessary."
This is the woman who President Obama hired to clean up rampant financial fraud.
This is the regulator who was to inspire confidence following the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
This is the pit bull who was to build shattered trust after the SEC blatantly ignored warnings about Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff and missed so many other white-collar schemes.
But Schapiro went to Dallas last week to tell a bunch of business editors and writers that she wishes she wouldn't have to argue about whether regulation is even necessary.
"The idea that regulation is per se counterproductive, the idea that it is always a net negative, stands reality on its head," she said at an annual conference of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, or Sabew.
"We have seen over the years what happens when financial markets are poorly regulated--they are prone to crashes, runs, manipulation and fraud. Investors are left unprotected, market structures become unstable and businesses are poorly served."
"This happens over and over again. And yet, despite these lessons, even basic, common-sense regulations are too often bitterly contested affairs."
This reminded me of the time Officer Friendly came to my kindergarten class to explain why we need traffic lights and crossing guards.
Imagine an Attorney General having to defend the existence of drug laws. Or an Army General having to justify guns?
Schapiro is supposed to be the nation's top cop on white-collar crimes, and this is how far she has come?
"Too often, in our discussion about financial reform, advocates have taken extreme positions--that all regulation is intrinsically bad, or inherently good."
Yes, just turn on the TV. Free market, good. Regulation, bad. But when regulators chime into this very simplistic discussion, they allow their opponents to frame all the arguments.
This is especially disappointing following Shapiro's remarks before Sabew in April 2009 in Denver, Colo., where she took questions targeting her agency's absentee-landlord approach to regulation.
"In the short time I've been chairman, I have begun efforts to revitalize the agency," she said then. "I have let it be known far and wide that things must change."
But what has changed? Executives still pay the SEC millions for the privilege of stealing billions, typically without admitting guilt.
And now Schapiro is crying poverty. The SEC could be self-funded through the fees it raises, yet it must go to Congress each year to plead for an annual appropriation.
Last year, it collected nearly $1.5 billion in fees, but received a $1.1 billion appropriation. Schapiro wants to up that to $1.4 billion to hire 780 more people to boost the agency's enforcement efforts and carry out new Dodd-Frank financial reforms. Without the increase, it'll be the same sad story.
"We can get the rules written," Schapiro said. "What we are not going to be able to do is operationalize them."
Republicans in Congress have had an easy time smacking down Schapiro for the SEC's missteps leading up to the financial crisis. Gut the agency. Then complain about its incompetence. It's the American way.
But Schapiro has given her opponents plenty of new ammunition. One example, she's had to explain David Becker, her agency's former top legal counsel. Becker worked on compensation issues for Madoff victims, even though he inherited a Madoff account from his late mother.
Schapiro also leased a million square feet of office space last July for the expanded agency she envisioned. But she did this without first securing the funds from Congress. Now, she's subleasing the space as fast as she can, and much of her new digs remain vacant.
This gives Republicans another chance to bring up one of their favorite topics: government waste.
The worst of it, though, is that instead of being a hard-bitten regulator, Schapiro has apparently become an apologist for regulations.
"Admittedly, individual regulations can be ill- or well-conceived, effective or ineffective," she said. "They impact market participants in different ways; costs and benefits can be hard to measure; and balancing competing interests is a delicate task. And, naturally, those who fear their profits will suffer may decide to fight even the most meaningful reform."
What does Schapiro hope to achieve in parroting the most cliche" sound bytes of her critics, besides her next inside-the-beltway job?
"Where we see the greatest risk to the investing public, that's where we will put our resources," Schapiro said. "We also need to be transparent about what we are not doing so there's not a false sense of comfort that the SEC isn't everywhere, when clearly we won't be."
This is the woman who President Obama hired to clean up rampant financial fraud.
This is the regulator who was to inspire confidence following the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
This is the pit bull who was to build shattered trust after the SEC blatantly ignored warnings about Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff and missed so many other white-collar schemes.
But Schapiro went to Dallas last week to tell a bunch of business editors and writers that she wishes she wouldn't have to argue about whether regulation is even necessary.
"The idea that regulation is per se counterproductive, the idea that it is always a net negative, stands reality on its head," she said at an annual conference of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, or Sabew.
"We have seen over the years what happens when financial markets are poorly regulated--they are prone to crashes, runs, manipulation and fraud. Investors are left unprotected, market structures become unstable and businesses are poorly served."
"This happens over and over again. And yet, despite these lessons, even basic, common-sense regulations are too often bitterly contested affairs."
This reminded me of the time Officer Friendly came to my kindergarten class to explain why we need traffic lights and crossing guards.
Imagine an Attorney General having to defend the existence of drug laws. Or an Army General having to justify guns?
Schapiro is supposed to be the nation's top cop on white-collar crimes, and this is how far she has come?
"Too often, in our discussion about financial reform, advocates have taken extreme positions--that all regulation is intrinsically bad, or inherently good."
Yes, just turn on the TV. Free market, good. Regulation, bad. But when regulators chime into this very simplistic discussion, they allow their opponents to frame all the arguments.
This is especially disappointing following Shapiro's remarks before Sabew in April 2009 in Denver, Colo., where she took questions targeting her agency's absentee-landlord approach to regulation.
"In the short time I've been chairman, I have begun efforts to revitalize the agency," she said then. "I have let it be known far and wide that things must change."
But what has changed? Executives still pay the SEC millions for the privilege of stealing billions, typically without admitting guilt.
And now Schapiro is crying poverty. The SEC could be self-funded through the fees it raises, yet it must go to Congress each year to plead for an annual appropriation.
Last year, it collected nearly $1.5 billion in fees, but received a $1.1 billion appropriation. Schapiro wants to up that to $1.4 billion to hire 780 more people to boost the agency's enforcement efforts and carry out new Dodd-Frank financial reforms. Without the increase, it'll be the same sad story.
"We can get the rules written," Schapiro said. "What we are not going to be able to do is operationalize them."
Republicans in Congress have had an easy time smacking down Schapiro for the SEC's missteps leading up to the financial crisis. Gut the agency. Then complain about its incompetence. It's the American way.
But Schapiro has given her opponents plenty of new ammunition. One example, she's had to explain David Becker, her agency's former top legal counsel. Becker worked on compensation issues for Madoff victims, even though he inherited a Madoff account from his late mother.
Schapiro also leased a million square feet of office space last July for the expanded agency she envisioned. But she did this without first securing the funds from Congress. Now, she's subleasing the space as fast as she can, and much of her new digs remain vacant.
This gives Republicans another chance to bring up one of their favorite topics: government waste.
The worst of it, though, is that instead of being a hard-bitten regulator, Schapiro has apparently become an apologist for regulations.
"Admittedly, individual regulations can be ill- or well-conceived, effective or ineffective," she said. "They impact market participants in different ways; costs and benefits can be hard to measure; and balancing competing interests is a delicate task. And, naturally, those who fear their profits will suffer may decide to fight even the most meaningful reform."
What does Schapiro hope to achieve in parroting the most cliche" sound bytes of her critics, besides her next inside-the-beltway job?
"Where we see the greatest risk to the investing public, that's where we will put our resources," Schapiro said. "We also need to be transparent about what we are not doing so there's not a false sense of comfort that the SEC isn't everywhere, when clearly we won't be."
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Victims of Stanford scam sue Antigua, Carib bank
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Jilted investors of a global fraud allegedly run by jailed financier R. Allen Stanford filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Caribbean regulators, five regional financial institutions and the government of Antigua and Barbuda.
The class-action suit seeks compensation for the "unlawful seizure" of the Bank of Antigua, a Stanford affiliate, attorney Peter D. Morgenstern said.
The Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, or ECCB, took over the Bank of Antigua in February 2009 in the wake of the U.S. fraud probe of the Texas tycoon's vast financial empire and redistributed its equity ownership.
But the complaint alleges the victims are entitled to the value of the Bank of Antigua when it was seized to provide some compensation to the roughly 28,000 investors from across the globe who allege they lost their life savings to the flamboyant financier.
"Instead of acting as a legitimate central bank, the ECCB became a partner in crime with the government of Antigua and Barbuda when it seized the bank," Morgenstern said in a statement. "The Bank of Antigua was, and remains, enormously valuable. All of that value rightfully belongs to Mr. Stanford's victims."
According to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Dallas, the Bank of Antigua's value included loan receivables from the government of Antigua worth tens of millions of dollars, at least.
Phone calls made to several Antiguan government officials went unanswered Tuesday. Kennedy Byron, a director of bank supervision for the ECCB, declined to comment.
The Eastern Caribbean Central Bank is the monetary authority for a group of eight island economies, and it explained its intervention at the time as an effort to contain damage to the local economy.
Stanford provided loans to the government of Antigua and was the country's largest private employer, with businesses that included a development company, cricket stadium, newspaper, an airline and two restaurants.
But Angela Shaw, a leader of the advocacy group Stanford Victims Coalition whose family invested $4.5 million in Stanford certificates of deposit, said foreign investors in Stanford's CDs were abandoned in the rush to protect the economy of Antigua, an island of 80,000 people.
"How can they say they need to protect Antigua when it has come at the cost of foreign citizens from around the world, when it was purchased with stolen money?" Shaw alleged during a phone interview from Dallas.
Stanford and other executives of the now-defunct Houston-based Stanford Financial Group are accused of orchestrating a huge Ponzi scheme by advising clients to invest more than $7 billion in certificates of deposit from the Stanford International Bank on Antigua. Investors from 113 countries were promised huge returns and assured their investments were safe.
But U.S. authorities say Stanford and the executives fabricated the bank's balance sheets, bribed Antiguan regulators and misused investors' money to pay for his lavish lifestyle.
The lawsuit says investors are entitled to compensation for the value of the Bank of Antigua when it was seized, and that equity ownership of the bank was distributed by the central bank to Antigua itself and five bank defendants for little or no compensation.
It says the financial institutions that took ownership of the Bank of Antigua are Antigua Commercial Bank, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla National Bank Ltd., Eastern Caribbean Financial Holdings Company Ltd., National Commercial Bank (SVG) Ltd., and National Bank of Dominica Ltd.
Stanford's financial empire was placed in the hands of a court-appointed attorney last year when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Stanford. The SEC accuses him of skimming more than $1 billion.
Stanford and the three executives pleaded not guilty to charges they ran a Ponzi scheme. Another former executive, James M. Davis, pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors.
The court-appointed receiver tracking down investors' lost money has said he hopes to gain control of more than $1.5 billion that would be returned to them. But an attorney representing the investors has said that goal may be unrealistic and victims should prepare to recover as little as 2 cents on the dollar.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
The class-action suit seeks compensation for the "unlawful seizure" of the Bank of Antigua, a Stanford affiliate, attorney Peter D. Morgenstern said.
The Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, or ECCB, took over the Bank of Antigua in February 2009 in the wake of the U.S. fraud probe of the Texas tycoon's vast financial empire and redistributed its equity ownership.
But the complaint alleges the victims are entitled to the value of the Bank of Antigua when it was seized to provide some compensation to the roughly 28,000 investors from across the globe who allege they lost their life savings to the flamboyant financier.
"Instead of acting as a legitimate central bank, the ECCB became a partner in crime with the government of Antigua and Barbuda when it seized the bank," Morgenstern said in a statement. "The Bank of Antigua was, and remains, enormously valuable. All of that value rightfully belongs to Mr. Stanford's victims."
According to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Dallas, the Bank of Antigua's value included loan receivables from the government of Antigua worth tens of millions of dollars, at least.
Phone calls made to several Antiguan government officials went unanswered Tuesday. Kennedy Byron, a director of bank supervision for the ECCB, declined to comment.
The Eastern Caribbean Central Bank is the monetary authority for a group of eight island economies, and it explained its intervention at the time as an effort to contain damage to the local economy.
Stanford provided loans to the government of Antigua and was the country's largest private employer, with businesses that included a development company, cricket stadium, newspaper, an airline and two restaurants.
But Angela Shaw, a leader of the advocacy group Stanford Victims Coalition whose family invested $4.5 million in Stanford certificates of deposit, said foreign investors in Stanford's CDs were abandoned in the rush to protect the economy of Antigua, an island of 80,000 people.
"How can they say they need to protect Antigua when it has come at the cost of foreign citizens from around the world, when it was purchased with stolen money?" Shaw alleged during a phone interview from Dallas.
Stanford and other executives of the now-defunct Houston-based Stanford Financial Group are accused of orchestrating a huge Ponzi scheme by advising clients to invest more than $7 billion in certificates of deposit from the Stanford International Bank on Antigua. Investors from 113 countries were promised huge returns and assured their investments were safe.
But U.S. authorities say Stanford and the executives fabricated the bank's balance sheets, bribed Antiguan regulators and misused investors' money to pay for his lavish lifestyle.
The lawsuit says investors are entitled to compensation for the value of the Bank of Antigua when it was seized, and that equity ownership of the bank was distributed by the central bank to Antigua itself and five bank defendants for little or no compensation.
It says the financial institutions that took ownership of the Bank of Antigua are Antigua Commercial Bank, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla National Bank Ltd., Eastern Caribbean Financial Holdings Company Ltd., National Commercial Bank (SVG) Ltd., and National Bank of Dominica Ltd.
Stanford's financial empire was placed in the hands of a court-appointed attorney last year when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Stanford. The SEC accuses him of skimming more than $1 billion.
Stanford and the three executives pleaded not guilty to charges they ran a Ponzi scheme. Another former executive, James M. Davis, pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors.
The court-appointed receiver tracking down investors' lost money has said he hopes to gain control of more than $1.5 billion that would be returned to them. But an attorney representing the investors has said that goal may be unrealistic and victims should prepare to recover as little as 2 cents on the dollar.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved