Dear SVC Members,
I apologize for the gap in time between updates, but I have some very exciting news today about a project I have been working on full-time all year—a legislative remedy that should get us SIPC if the bill is passed—regardless of the outcome of the SEC vs. SIPC appeal (which could still go our way). “The Restoring Main Street Investor Protection and Confidence Act,” is being introduced in the House today with a Senate companion bill to follow. A hearing of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises is set for Thursday, November 21 (victims are encouraged to attend and I will be testifying along with another Stanford victim). A Senate Banking Committee hearing will be held as well, but a date has not been set.............
To read the Complete Update from SVC Visit: http://sivg.org.ag/topic236.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 sgc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sgc. Show all posts
Sunday, 24 November 2013
Thursday, 21 November 2013
U.S. lawmakers seek fix to help investors file claims against brokers
Nov 20 (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. House and Senate members is seeking to make it easier for investment fraud victims to seek compensation, after investors in Allen Stanford's Ponzi scheme were deemed ineligible under current law to file claims.
The bill, introduced by Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter, New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, New Jersey Republican Rep. Scott Garrett and New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, would bestow U.S. securities regulators with greater powers to oversee the process of determining whether customers of failed brokerages qualify for compensation.
The legislative proposal comes as the Securities and Exchange Commission awaits a crucial decision from a U.S. appeals court over the fate of the Stanford victims.
The SEC is trying to get the court to force an industry-backed fund that protects investors to start court proceedings so Stanford victims can file claims to recover a least a portion of the millions they lost.
The Securities Investor Protection Corp., or SIPC, which administers the fund, has refused the SEC's request, saying Stanford investors do not meet the legal definition of "customer" under the federal law designed to protect investors if their brokerage collapses.
SIPC uses funds paid by the brokerage industry to compensate investors in the event of a bankruptcy, such as the one that occurred at Lehman Brothers in 2008.
Allen Stanford was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in prison for bilking investors with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua.
Many of the investors who purchased the products, however, did so through his Houston, Texas-based brokerage, Stanford Group Co.
SIPC argues that investors in the scheme entrusted their money to the offshore, unregulated Antiguan bank and not to the U.S. broker-dealer. Moreover, it says that Stanford's investors actually did receive their certificates of deposit, as promised, even though they turned out to be virtually worthless.
A federal district judge agreed with SIPC's legal position in July 2012, and tossed out the SEC's lawsuit.
The SEC appealed the ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in October, and is awaiting a decision.
SIPC's refusal to let Stanford victims file claims has frustrated many lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including Vitter, who has been among the most vocal in fighting for the Stanford victims.
"The Stanford Ponzi scheme devastated many Louisiana families who invested their hard-earned savings in good faith that it would be there for them when they retire," Vitter said in a statement issued on Wednesday.
"Our bill will fix a key problem we've seen with the system, which currently allows SIPC's Wall Street members to benefit economically from the SIPC guarantee while denying the claims of legitimate victims," he added.
The legislative proposal by the four lawmakers will be vetted in a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday.
Among the witnesses scheduled to testify are Stephen Harbeck, the president of SIPC, a representative from Wall Street's leading brokerage trade group, and Angie Kogutt, a Stanford victim in charge of the Stanford Victims Coalition.
The 19-page bill would amend the definition of "customer" to ensure that investors who deposit cash to buy securities can still be covered by SIPC protection, even if the money is initially given to a firm that is not a SIPC member.
It would also give the SEC more authority to force SIPC to act without the need for court approval.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic235.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
The bill, introduced by Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter, New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, New Jersey Republican Rep. Scott Garrett and New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, would bestow U.S. securities regulators with greater powers to oversee the process of determining whether customers of failed brokerages qualify for compensation.
The legislative proposal comes as the Securities and Exchange Commission awaits a crucial decision from a U.S. appeals court over the fate of the Stanford victims.
The SEC is trying to get the court to force an industry-backed fund that protects investors to start court proceedings so Stanford victims can file claims to recover a least a portion of the millions they lost.
The Securities Investor Protection Corp., or SIPC, which administers the fund, has refused the SEC's request, saying Stanford investors do not meet the legal definition of "customer" under the federal law designed to protect investors if their brokerage collapses.
SIPC uses funds paid by the brokerage industry to compensate investors in the event of a bankruptcy, such as the one that occurred at Lehman Brothers in 2008.
Allen Stanford was sentenced in 2012 to 110 years in prison for bilking investors with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua.
Many of the investors who purchased the products, however, did so through his Houston, Texas-based brokerage, Stanford Group Co.
SIPC argues that investors in the scheme entrusted their money to the offshore, unregulated Antiguan bank and not to the U.S. broker-dealer. Moreover, it says that Stanford's investors actually did receive their certificates of deposit, as promised, even though they turned out to be virtually worthless.
A federal district judge agreed with SIPC's legal position in July 2012, and tossed out the SEC's lawsuit.
The SEC appealed the ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in October, and is awaiting a decision.
SIPC's refusal to let Stanford victims file claims has frustrated many lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including Vitter, who has been among the most vocal in fighting for the Stanford victims.
"The Stanford Ponzi scheme devastated many Louisiana families who invested their hard-earned savings in good faith that it would be there for them when they retire," Vitter said in a statement issued on Wednesday.
"Our bill will fix a key problem we've seen with the system, which currently allows SIPC's Wall Street members to benefit economically from the SIPC guarantee while denying the claims of legitimate victims," he added.
The legislative proposal by the four lawmakers will be vetted in a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday.
Among the witnesses scheduled to testify are Stephen Harbeck, the president of SIPC, a representative from Wall Street's leading brokerage trade group, and Angie Kogutt, a Stanford victim in charge of the Stanford Victims Coalition.
The 19-page bill would amend the definition of "customer" to ensure that investors who deposit cash to buy securities can still be covered by SIPC protection, even if the money is initially given to a firm that is not a SIPC member.
It would also give the SEC more authority to force SIPC to act without the need for court approval.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic235.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Monday, 4 November 2013
U.S. justices divided in Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme case
On the first day of its new term on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided over whether lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with convicted swindler Allen Stanford could avoid lawsuits by investors seeking to recoup losses incurred in his $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were all sued by former Stanford investors.
They are part of a consolidated case along with two other defendants, financial services firm SEI Investments and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Brittin, for which the Supreme Court heard a one-hour argument on Monday.
The defendants sought Supreme Court review after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2012 said the lawsuits brought under state laws by the former Stanford clients could go ahead.
The former Stanford clients are keen to pursue state law claims because the Supreme Court has previously held that similar so-called "aiding and abetting" claims cannot be made under federal law.
The defendants have argued that under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), the claims cannot be heard under state law either.
The class action lawsuits filed by the former investors accused Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both law firms, of obstructing a Securities and Exchange Commission probe into Stanford, and sought to hold the other defendants responsible as well.
Stanford's fraud involved the sale of certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. Much of the litigation centers on whether these qualified as securities under applicable laws.
Stanford is serving a 110-year prison sentence.
ORAL ARGUMENT
During Monday's oral argument, the justices questioned to what extent a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would affect the SEC. The Obama administration, representing the SEC, sided with the defendants.
The administration said in court papers it was against the lawsuits because they would conflict with Congress's intent to give the SEC the "ability to protect the securities markets against a variety of different forms of fraud."
Justice Department lawyer Elaine Goldenberg told the justices that lawsuits like those filed by the Stanford investors have "a very particular effect on investor confidence and the integrity of the markets, which is one of the purposes of the securities laws."
Several justices, including Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Stephen Breyer, indicated they would be uncomfortable with allowing such lawsuits to proceed in state court, although they also seemed keen for some kind of limit to federal authority.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in close cases, questioned whether the claims made by the Stanford investors were any different from similar cases that courts already have determined to be excluded from state law claims.
But Justice Anthony Scalia signaled support for the plaintiffs on the language of the federal law in question, which says that state lawsuits are barred in relation to activity "in connection with the purchase or sale" of a covered security.
"There has been no purchase or sale here," he said.
A ruling in the case is expected before the term ends in late June.
The cases are Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court. No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado Inc et al v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-86; and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-88.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic229.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Monday, 28 October 2013
Stanford Financial Group Receivership Update
The four schedules filed by the Receiver address total distributions of approximately $12.59 million of the $55 million that has been authorized for distribution by the Court. For Stanford Investors who have not yet received an initial distribution, there are a number of reasons why that may have occurred, including the following:
•Investor may not have filed a claim with the Receiver’s claim process before the Bar Date fixed by the Court.
•The Investor may not have responded to a request for additional information from the Receiver’s claim processing agent, Gilardi & Co.
•The Investor may have objected to the Receiver’s Notice of Determination with respect to the Investor’s claim.
•The Investor may not have completed and returned the Receiver’s Certification Form.*
•The Investor’s distribution check may simply be in process, such that it will be listed on subsequent schedules to be filed by the Receiver.
The Receiver is continuing to process Notices of Determination, objections to Notices of Determination, and Claim Certifications. Additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed on a rolling basis. It is the Receiver’s expectation that additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed every few weeks (provided that there are sufficient claims being processed to justify that pace).
*The Receiver advises that a significant number of Investors who filed claims and received Notices of Determination have not yet returned completed Certification Forms. Completed Certification Forms must be received before distribution checks are issued.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic227.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
•Investor may not have filed a claim with the Receiver’s claim process before the Bar Date fixed by the Court.
•The Investor may not have responded to a request for additional information from the Receiver’s claim processing agent, Gilardi & Co.
•The Investor may have objected to the Receiver’s Notice of Determination with respect to the Investor’s claim.
•The Investor may not have completed and returned the Receiver’s Certification Form.*
•The Investor’s distribution check may simply be in process, such that it will be listed on subsequent schedules to be filed by the Receiver.
The Receiver is continuing to process Notices of Determination, objections to Notices of Determination, and Claim Certifications. Additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed on a rolling basis. It is the Receiver’s expectation that additional payment schedules will be prepared and filed every few weeks (provided that there are sufficient claims being processed to justify that pace).
*The Receiver advises that a significant number of Investors who filed claims and received Notices of Determination have not yet returned completed Certification Forms. Completed Certification Forms must be received before distribution checks are issued.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic227.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Saturday, 26 October 2013
Stanford Financial Claims 5th Distribution October 25th 2013
Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan
- On October 25, 2013, the Receiver filed his 5th Schedule of
distribution payments with the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 5th Schedule will be
followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a
rolling basis as additional responses to Certification Notices are
received and processed.
To view a copy of the 5th Schedule, please click here:
http://sivg.org.ag/topic225.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
To view a copy of the 5th Schedule, please click here:
http://sivg.org.ag/topic225.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
Canada Recovers $17 Million for Stanford Victims
Canada Recovers $17 Million for Stanford Ponzi Scheme Victims
Ontario Attorney General Recovers $17 Million for Victims of Ponzi Scheme. Largest Ever Recovery Under Ontario’s Civil Forfeiture Law.
TORONTO -- Ontario's Attorney General has obtained a court order to recover $17 million for victims of an international investment fraud -- the largest ever recovery under Ontario's civil forfeiture law.
"In 2009, U.S. authorities referred this case to our Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office. I am proud that victims of this large-scale, international fraud are going to be compensated thanks to excellent cooperation between Ontario and the United States,” said Ontario Attorney General John Gerretsen.
The money was linked to an international Ponzi scheme operated over the past decade by the Stanford group of companies in the United States, South America and the Caribbean. Under the scheme, returns to investors were paid from their own money or the money of other investors, rather than from profit. U.S. authorities filed suit against Stanford and his companies in 2009.
Although the money was held in accounts at a major Canadian bank, the majority of victims are in the U.S. and Latin America. As a result of the court order, the $17 million will be forfeited to Ontario and then transferred to the United States Department of Justice, which will distribute the funds to victims.
Another $6 million remains under control of the court and is designated to be returned to victims who deposited money in accounts after the fraud was uncovered.
The Stanford Ponzi scheme resulted in $5.9 billion of investor losses worldwide, with an estimated 28,000 victims. The number of Canadian victims is not yet known.
The Stanford group of companies include the Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company and Stanford Capital Management LLC.
The Civil Remedies Act, 2001 allows the Attorney General to ask the civil court for an order to freeze, take possession of, and forfeit to the Crown, property that is determined to be a proceed or an instrument of unlawful activity.
Ontario has approximately $24.5 million in frozen property, pending completion of civil forfeiture proceedings.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic214.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Ministry of the Attorney General
Ontario's Attorney General has obtained a court order to recover $17 million for victims of an international investment fraud -- the largest ever recovery under Ontario's civil forfeiture law.
The money was linked to an international Ponzi scheme operated over the past decade by the Stanford group of companies in the United States, South America and the Caribbean. Under the scheme, returns to investors were paid from their own money or the money of other investors, rather than from profit. U.S. authorities filed suit against Stanford and his companies in 2009.
Although the money was held in accounts at a major Canadian bank, the majority of victims are in the U.S. and Latin America. As a result of the court order, the $17 million will be forfeited to Ontario and then transferred to the United States Department of Justice, which will distribute the funds to victims.
Quick Facts
•Another $6 million remains under control of the court and is designated to be returned to victims who deposited money in accounts after the fraud was uncovered.
•The Ponzi scheme resulted in $5.9 billion of investor losses worldwide.
•There are an estimated 28,000 victims. The number of Canadian victims is not yet known.
•The Stanford group of companies include the Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company and Stanford Capital Management LLC.
•The Civil Remedies Act, 2001 allows the Attorney General to ask the civil court for an order to freeze, take possession of, and forfeit to the Crown, property that is determined to be a proceed or an instrument of unlawful activity.
•Ontario has approximately $24.5 million in frozen property, pending completion of civil forfeiture proceedings.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic214.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Ontario Attorney General Recovers $17 Million for Victims of Ponzi Scheme. Largest Ever Recovery Under Ontario’s Civil Forfeiture Law.
TORONTO -- Ontario's Attorney General has obtained a court order to recover $17 million for victims of an international investment fraud -- the largest ever recovery under Ontario's civil forfeiture law.
"In 2009, U.S. authorities referred this case to our Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office. I am proud that victims of this large-scale, international fraud are going to be compensated thanks to excellent cooperation between Ontario and the United States,” said Ontario Attorney General John Gerretsen.
The money was linked to an international Ponzi scheme operated over the past decade by the Stanford group of companies in the United States, South America and the Caribbean. Under the scheme, returns to investors were paid from their own money or the money of other investors, rather than from profit. U.S. authorities filed suit against Stanford and his companies in 2009.
Although the money was held in accounts at a major Canadian bank, the majority of victims are in the U.S. and Latin America. As a result of the court order, the $17 million will be forfeited to Ontario and then transferred to the United States Department of Justice, which will distribute the funds to victims.
Another $6 million remains under control of the court and is designated to be returned to victims who deposited money in accounts after the fraud was uncovered.
The Stanford Ponzi scheme resulted in $5.9 billion of investor losses worldwide, with an estimated 28,000 victims. The number of Canadian victims is not yet known.
The Stanford group of companies include the Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company and Stanford Capital Management LLC.
The Civil Remedies Act, 2001 allows the Attorney General to ask the civil court for an order to freeze, take possession of, and forfeit to the Crown, property that is determined to be a proceed or an instrument of unlawful activity.
Ontario has approximately $24.5 million in frozen property, pending completion of civil forfeiture proceedings.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic214.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Attorney General Recovers $17 Million for Victims of Ponzi Scheme Largest Ever Recovery Under Ontario’s Civil Forfeiture Law
September 24, 2013 6:00 a.m.Ministry of the Attorney General
Ontario's Attorney General has obtained a court order to recover $17 million for victims of an international investment fraud -- the largest ever recovery under Ontario's civil forfeiture law.
The money was linked to an international Ponzi scheme operated over the past decade by the Stanford group of companies in the United States, South America and the Caribbean. Under the scheme, returns to investors were paid from their own money or the money of other investors, rather than from profit. U.S. authorities filed suit against Stanford and his companies in 2009.
Although the money was held in accounts at a major Canadian bank, the majority of victims are in the U.S. and Latin America. As a result of the court order, the $17 million will be forfeited to Ontario and then transferred to the United States Department of Justice, which will distribute the funds to victims.
Quick Facts
•Another $6 million remains under control of the court and is designated to be returned to victims who deposited money in accounts after the fraud was uncovered.
•The Ponzi scheme resulted in $5.9 billion of investor losses worldwide.
•There are an estimated 28,000 victims. The number of Canadian victims is not yet known.
•The Stanford group of companies include the Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company and Stanford Capital Management LLC.
•The Civil Remedies Act, 2001 allows the Attorney General to ask the civil court for an order to freeze, take possession of, and forfeit to the Crown, property that is determined to be a proceed or an instrument of unlawful activity.
•Ontario has approximately $24.5 million in frozen property, pending completion of civil forfeiture proceedings.
Read More: http://sivg.org.ag/topic214.html
For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org.ag/
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
URGENT! Submit your Comments to Prosecutors on Pendergest-Holt proposed Lenient Sentence
Below are the court papers for the Plea Bargain of Prendergast Holt. The court is asking for our comments about this. PLEASE, we don't have much time but it is imperative that we send emails expressing our disgust at this light sentencing. REMEMBER....we have already served 3 1/2 years and we still have many years to go before we can see any sign of freedom from our forced poverty. WE need to make clear to Judge Godbey that it is grossly unfair for PH to walk away with such a lenient sentence and we also need to request that she forfeit all her property, and money...after all it was the victims who paid for her lifestyle!!
PLEASE NOTE THIS HAS TO DONE TODAY!!!!!!!!!
On June 18, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a Notice of Setting indicating that on June 21, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., the defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is expected to plead guilty to resolve the pending charges against her in the above-referenced case. At that time, Holt will enter into a plea agreement with the government pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under that rule, the government agrees that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply. Such a recommendation or request binds only the court once the court accepts the plea agreement at sentencing. To resolve the pending charges against her, the defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is expected to plead guilty to Count Twenty of the Indictment, charging Obstruction of Justice, and the government has agreed that a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release, is the appropriate disposition of the case. She will also be subject to a fine, to be determined by the Court.
In light of this recent development, and in order for us to learn if you have any views in regard to any such plea, please submit your views to the prosecutors handling this investigation, by providing comments to Pam Washington at 1-888-549-3945 or via email at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov, no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 20, 2012. Also, in accordance with the Order Authorizing Compliance with the Justice for All Act issued in this case on June 16, 2010, any victim wishing to appear and to be heard by the Court at the plea hearing must notify Pam Washington at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov by the same June 20 deadline. However, as the defendant Laura Pendergest-Holt is pleading guilty under Rule 11 (c)(1)(C), and her plea agreement will not be accepted until the time of sentencing, the government will continue to accept comments concerning the plea after the June 20 deadline and up until 30 days before sentencing. The Court will later rule on whether, and the manner in which, victims may be heard at the sentencing proceeding. Lastly, because this plea agreement was reached recently, and because the precise language of the plea agreement is still being finalized, the executed plea agreement will be filed publicly following the June 21, 2012 hearing.
Kate
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Stanford Financial U.S. Receiver Announces Notice of Bar Date to Submit Claims Against Stanford Financial Receivership Entities
DALLAS, May 7, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The following Notice has been issued by the Stanford Financial U.S. Receiver pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:09-CV-0298-N
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD.,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF LAST DAY TO SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM
TO ANY CLAIMANTS OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ENTITIES LISTED IN THE BOX BELOW
TO ANY CLAIMANTS OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ENTITIES LISTED IN THE BOX BELOW
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has entered an order establishing September 1, 2012, at 11:59 p.m.(prevailing Central Time) (the "Bar Date") as the last date for each person or entity (including individuals, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures estates, trusts and governmental units) who asserts a claim (collectively, "Claimants", as more specifically defined below) against any of the Receivership Entities listed in the box below to submit a Proof of Claim Form.
Receivership Entities
---------------------
Stanford International Bank, Ltd.
Stanford Trust Company
Stanford Group Company
Stanford Financial Group Company
Stanford Capital Management, LLC
Stanford Coins & Bullion, Inc.
The list above contains only the more significant of the Receivership
Entities. A complete list of the Receivership Entities is available at
www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Claimant must identify, in the Proof of Claim Form, the Receivership Entity against which it is asserting a Claim if such information is available to the Claimant. However, a Claimant may submit Proof of Claim Forms against several or all of the Receivership Entities if, based upon a reasonable investigation, such Claimant believes that it holds a Claim against those Receivership Entities or is unsure which Receivership Entity against which it holds a Claim. If the Receiver or his Claims Agent requests additional information regarding the identity of the Receivership Entity or Receivership Entities against which the Claimant's Claim is properly asserted, the Claimant must respond to the request and provide the requested information if available to the Claimant.
The Bar Date and claims filing procedures set forth below apply to all claims against the Receivership Entities that arose prior to February 16, 2009, the date the Receiver was appointed. If you believe any of the Receivership Entities may owe you money, you should consider filing a claim before the applicable Bar Date. Holders of claims that arose after February 16, 2009 are not required to submit a Proof of Claim Form at this time.
WHO MUST SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM
You MUST submit a Proof of Claim Form if you have a Claim against any of the Receivership Entities that arose prior to February 16, 2009. This includes any Claim based on acts or omissions of Receivership Entities that occurred before February 16, 2009, even if those claims are not now fixed, liquidated, or certain and did not mature or become fixed, liquidated or certain before that date.
All persons or entities (including, without limitation, individuals, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, estates, trusts, and governmental units) that believe they possess a potential or claimed right to payment, or a claim of any nature, against any of the Receivership Entities and believe that they are owed any money by, or are entitled to a distribution from, any of the Receivership Entities must submit a Proof of Claim Form, unless otherwise expressly stated herein, regardless of whether such claim has been acknowledged by the Receiver (each a "Claimant").
Claimants include, but are not limited to, any person or entity (including, without limitation, individuals, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, estates, trusts, and governmental units) that holds a Claim. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Claimants specifically include, but are not limited to, any person or entity holding:
- a Claim based on an investment in, with or through a Receivership Entity or a customer transaction with or through a Receivership Entity ("Customer Claims"), including but not limited to claims relating to (1) certificate(s) of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("Stanford International Bank, Ltd. CD Claim"); (2) other customer accounts or transactions with Stanford International Bank, Ltd. ("Other Stanford International Bank, Ltd. Claim"); (3) investments in, with or through Stanford Coins & Bullion, Inc. or other customer transactions relating to coins and bullion ("Coin & Bullion Claim"); (4) investments in partnerships or other entities sponsored by a Receivership Entity ("Partnership Claim"); (5) investments in and transactions relating to brokerage accounts held through a Receivership Entity ("Brokerage Account Claim"); (6) investments in, with or through or customer transactions with Stanford Development Company ("Stanford Development Company Claim"); and (7) investments in, with or through any other Receivership Entity or a customer transaction with any other Receivership Entity ("Other Customer Claim"); and
- a Claim of any other kind whatsoever against any Receivership Entity, including, without limitation, Claims based on or relating to (1) the provision of goods or services to any Receivership Entity for which payment has not been made in whole or in part ("Services Claim"); (2) real estate owned or leased by Receivership Entities, including but not limited to past due rent ("Real Estate Claim"); (3) money loaned to any Receivership Entity and that has not been repaid in whole or in part ("Loan Claim"); (4) unpaid wages, compensation, or other employment benefits ("Employment Compensation Claim"); (5) tax liabilities, including those held by federal, state, local or other governmental entities or authorities ("Tax Claim"); and (6) primary, secondary, direct, indirect, secured, unsecured, or contingent liability, whether based on contract, tort, indemnity, reimbursement, subrogation, or other legal or equitable theory ("Other Claim").
If the Claimant reasonably believes that it has or may have more than one type of Claim against the Receivership Entities, the Claimant must submit a separate Proof of Claim Form for each type of Claim. A Claimant's failure to submit a separate Proof of Claim Form for each type of Claim shall be a basis for the Receiver to issue a Notice of Deficiency, to which the Claimant must respond.
WHO DOES NOT NEED TO SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM:
"Administrative Claimants" that provided goods or services to the Receivership Entities or the Receiver after the Receiver was appointed on February 16, 2009, are not required to submit a Proof of Claim Form prior to the Bar Date. Claimants that have previously submitted a "Claimant Form" through the Receiver's website (http://stanfordfinancialreceivership.com/claims.php) are not required to submit a proof of claim prior to the Bar Date but may wish to do so in order to provide additional information to the Receiver. However, upon request from the Receiver, the Claimant may be required to submit additional supporting documentation in order for the Claim asserted in the Claimant Form to be allowed. Beginning on May 4, 2012, the date the Court entered the order setting the Bar Date, Claimants may no longer submit a Claimant Form but shall, instead, submit a Proof of Claim in accordance with the terms of the Court's Bar Date Order.
WHEN AND WHERE TO SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM
Proof of Claim Forms must be submitted so as to be sent or postmarked on or before September 1, 2012 at 11:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) in the following manner: (1) electronically online at www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com; (2) by mail to Stanford Financial Claims, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990; (3) by courier service, hand delivery, or mail addressed to Stanford Financial Claims, 3301 Kerner Blvd, San Rafael, CA 94901; (4) by electronic mail, as an attachment in portable document format (.pdf), info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com or (5) by facsimile or by telecopy to +1-415-258-9639. For Proof of Claim Forms sent by mail, an official postmark shall serve as proof of the date sent. Claimants who choose to submit Proof of Claim Forms by courier service, hand delivery, electronic mail or facsimile should retain a copy of their bill of lading or other proof that their Proof of Claim was sent by the Bar Date.
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM BY THE BAR DATE
If, as described in this notice, you are required to submit a Proof of Claim Form but do not do so on or before the Bar Date of September 1, 2012, at 11:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) you shall be forever barred, estopped, and enjoined to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law from asserting, in any manner, such Claim against the Receivership Entities and their respective property or estates; shall not be permitted to object to any distribution plan proposed by the Receiver on account of such Claim; shall be denied any distributions under any distribution plan implemented by the Receiver on account of such Claim; and shall not receive any further notices on account of such Claim. Further, the Receivership Entities and their respective property or estates shall be discharged from any and all indebtedness or liability with respect to such Claim. You may wish to consult an attorney concerning this matter.
To obtain additional information and a Proof of Claim Form call: +1-866-964-6301 or +1-317-324-0757 Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (prevailing Pacific Time). Or write to: Stanford Financial Claims, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990. Or email to: -info@stanfordfinancialclaims.com
A copy of the Bar Date Order, Proof of Claim Form, instructions, and additional information for potential claimants is available at www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
KLS complaint against the U.S. Government/SEC
Please find below the KLS complaint against the U.S. Government/SEC for its negligence in the Stanford case causing billions of dollars of losses to investors. KLS continues to amend and file claims with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission so that you can all be covered by this complaint and the class that it represents. All those of you who may have filed with another attorney must amend your claims in order to be covered by this complaint.
Ft. Lauderdale, FLA – A class action lawsuit was filed against the United States yesterday, December 13, 2011, for the billions in losses suffered by investors in the Allen Stanford international Ponzi scheme.
The case, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeks to hold the SEC responsible for its failure to stop Stanford and his registered investment advisor and broker/dealer company Stanford Group Company (“SGC”), who the SEC investigated several times between 1997 and 2004. The suit claims that the SEC was grossly negligent in its actions following each investigation in failing to take any action to stop Stanford, whom SEC official had determined was operating a Ponzi scheme. The class action against the SEC was filed the day after the SEC filed suit against the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) for its refusal to reimburse investors for their losses.
“This case is unique because the SEC knew all along that this was a fraud and did nothing,” said lead attorney Dr. Gaytri Kachroo of Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. (KLS), who is representing investors in the class action. “If the SEC had simply refused to register SGC for any of its various securities laws violations or reported to SIPC that SBC was a Ponzi scheme and insolvent, the SEC could have stopped this scheme over a decade ago.”
In government investigations in 1997, 1998, 2002, and 2004, the SEC determined that Stanford was operating a Ponzi Scheme, but failed to take action to prevent his fraud. After increasing pressure from the Madoff collapse, the SEC finally acted in 2009, filing a case in federal court against Stanford and his companies, but only after investors had been defrauded of over $7 billion. The suit also alleges that the court-appointed SEC receiver has only been able to recover $100 million, net of expenses, out of the $7 billion investors lost because of the SEC’s negligence.
The case is Zelaya et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 11-CV-62644-RNS (S. D. Fla. 2011).
KACHROO LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
Dr. Gaytri D. Kachroo
219 Concord Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 864-0755
Facsimile (617) 864-1125
Press Release
Ft. Lauderdale, FLA – A class action lawsuit was filed against the United States yesterday, December 13, 2011, for the billions in losses suffered by investors in the Allen Stanford international Ponzi scheme.
The case, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeks to hold the SEC responsible for its failure to stop Stanford and his registered investment advisor and broker/dealer company Stanford Group Company (“SGC”), who the SEC investigated several times between 1997 and 2004. The suit claims that the SEC was grossly negligent in its actions following each investigation in failing to take any action to stop Stanford, whom SEC official had determined was operating a Ponzi scheme. The class action against the SEC was filed the day after the SEC filed suit against the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) for its refusal to reimburse investors for their losses.
“This case is unique because the SEC knew all along that this was a fraud and did nothing,” said lead attorney Dr. Gaytri Kachroo of Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. (KLS), who is representing investors in the class action. “If the SEC had simply refused to register SGC for any of its various securities laws violations or reported to SIPC that SBC was a Ponzi scheme and insolvent, the SEC could have stopped this scheme over a decade ago.”
In government investigations in 1997, 1998, 2002, and 2004, the SEC determined that Stanford was operating a Ponzi Scheme, but failed to take action to prevent his fraud. After increasing pressure from the Madoff collapse, the SEC finally acted in 2009, filing a case in federal court against Stanford and his companies, but only after investors had been defrauded of over $7 billion. The suit also alleges that the court-appointed SEC receiver has only been able to recover $100 million, net of expenses, out of the $7 billion investors lost because of the SEC’s negligence.
The case is Zelaya et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 11-CV-62644-RNS (S. D. Fla. 2011).
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.
Friday, 25 February 2011
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