SEC wins dismissal of lawsuit over handling of $7 bln Stanford fraud

Published: Tuesday, 13 Aug 2013 | 12:40 PM ETBy: Jonathan Stempel



* SEC protected by exception to Federal Tort Claims Act

* Victims say SEC knew of Stanford Ponzi scheme in 1997

* Stanford serving 110-year prison term for $7.2 bln fraud

Aug 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida has thrown out a lawsuit accusing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of negligence for failing to report that the now-imprisoned swindler Allen Stanford was running a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami said the market regulator was shielded under an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act that bars claims arising from misrepresentation or deceit.

The plaintiffs, Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, said they lost a combined $1.65 million with Stanford, and sought class-action status on behalf of investors who were victims of his fraud. They plan to appeal Monday's decision, their lawyer Gaytri Kachroo said. SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan declined to comment.

Stanford, 63, is serving a 110-year prison sentence after he was convicted on criminal charges in March 2012 for a fraud that the government said was centered in certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.

Zelaya and Glantz claimed that the SEC considered Stanford's business a fraud after each of four examinations between 1997 and 2004, but failed to advise the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which compensates victims of failed brokerages.

The SEC filed civil charges against Stanford in February 2009, two months after the multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme of New York-based swindler Bernard Madoff was uncovered. In a typical Ponzi scheme, investors are promised high or consistent returns relative to the amount of risk taken, and older investors are paid with money from newer investors.

Last September, Scola let the lawsuit against the SEC go forward, saying the plaintiffs could argue that the regulator had breached a duty to report Stanford's misconduct.

But on Monday, he said the FTCA exception barring claims of misrepresentation deprived him of jurisdiction.

"The plaintiffs claim that they were induced into entering disadvantageous business transactions because of the SEC's misrepresentation," he wrote. "The plaintiffs' cause of action is a classic claim for misrepresentation."

Their lawyer Kachroo said: "We believe that the judge did not draw the appropriate distinction between a claim based on a misrepresentation and our claim based on a failure to warn in line with the SEC's mandatory duty to notify SIPC."

In 2010, the SEC's inspector general criticized the regulator, finding that it knew as early as 1997 that Stanford was likely running a Ponzi scheme.

Earlier this year, federal appeals courts in New York and California dismissed lawsuits against the SEC by victims of Madoff's fraud.

The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 11-62644.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=103

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Stanford Victims’ Suit Over SEC Handling of Probe Tossed

Stanford Victims’ Suit Over SEC Handling of Probe Tossed
By Andrew Harris - Aug 13, 2013 3:30 PM CT

Two of R. Allen Stanford’s investors lost a bid to hold the federal government liable for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s alleged failure to tell another agency the financier’s business was in trouble.

The investors sued the U.S. two years ago claiming the SEC failed in its statutory duty to tell the Securities Investor Protection Corp. it suspected Stanford was running a fraud scheme before suing him in February 2009.

Stanford, 63, was later indicted. He was found guilty last year of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme and is serving a 110-year prison sentence. Yesterday, a U.S. judge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, ruled the federal government is immune from the investors’ suit.

“The plaintiffs claim is that they were induced into entering disadvantageous business transactions because of the SEC’s misrepresentation,” U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. said in his ruling.

That type of claim isn’t allowed by the Federal Tort Claims Act, which sets forth under what circumstances the U.S. will let itself be sued, Scola said. Scola last year denied a defense bid for dismissal of the case, accepting as true at the time that the SEC had a duty to inform SIPC of its concerns.

SEC Probes
The SEC probed Houston-based Stanford Group Co. four times from 1997 and 2004, according to the investors’ revised complaint filed last year. While suspecting the business was a Ponzi scheme, with early investors paid from funds of those who followed, the agency took no action until 2009.

Plaintiff Carlos Zelaya invested $1 million with Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd., losing almost all of it, while co-plaintiff George Glantz Revocable Trust lost almost all of a $650,000 investment, according to the complaint.

Their lawyer, Gaytri Kachroo of Cambridge, Massachusetts, didn’t immediately reply to a voice-mail requesting comment on the court’s decision. Kevin Callahan, a spokesman for the SEC, declined to comment.

Stanford investors lost about $5.1 billion in the scheme.

The case is Zelaya v. U.S., 11-cv-62644, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in Chicago federal court at aharris16@bloomberg.net

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=103

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Golden Receivers – Trustees make a killing mopping up frauds

Golden Receivers – Trustees make a killing mopping up frauds
By JAMES DORAN
New York Post | August 12, 2009
Link to article

There’s a bull market on Wall Street.
Not for investors, but for a handful of elite lawyers and financial pros acting as court-appointed receivers or trustees of firms whose principals have been snagged by authorities and charged with running Ponzi schemes.
These lucky few, whose jobs most times are built around retrieving assets and winding down operations, can earn anywhere from $4,500 an hour to almost $2 million a week.
In the larger cases, professionals can earn $100 million over the life of the case.
And with the economy in recession and a surge in fraud cases being filed — from Bernie Madoff to R. Allen Stanford, Tom Petters and Ezra Merkin — there is no shortage of work.
“Many of the receivers I know are pretty busy,” said Robb Evans, whose firm has been appointed receiver in 28 cases this year through July, including the $1.5 billion fraud at WG Trading, which snared New Yorkers Paul Greenwood and Stephen Walsh.
Over the same period last year, Evans was appointed in 11 cases.
Ralph Janvey, the receiver winding down Stanford Financial Group, asked the court to approve more than $27 million of fees for just a few months’ work on the case. Janvey will pay accountants and lawyers at 14 different firms with the funds.
When the Securities and Exchange Commission and investors objected to Janvey’s massive fees, he told them he had already given them a 20 percent discount “out of concerns for the victims.”
While it is hard to pinpoint exactly what percentage of the total assets in any fraud will be eaten up by the professional fees of these “Golden Receivers,” in one recent $6.6 million fraud, the receiver distributed 43 percent of the assets to the victim — the rest went to professionals.
The percentage of assets eaten up by professional fees in the larger, $1 billion-plus cases, is expected to be lower.
“It’s a gravy train,” said Billy Procida, CEO of Procida Inc, who for a short time was appointed receiver to The Petters Group Worldwide after its founder, Tom Petters, was accused of running a $4 billion Ponzi scheme.
Procida, a Donald Trump protégé who was asked to become the receiver by a group of Petters creditors, was forced aside when a Minnesota court appointed Doug Kelley, a local lawyer and former Republican gubernatorial candidate, to wind down the business.
“I have dealt with a number of receiverships, and for these lawyers it’s like the full employment act,” Procida said.
In all, five $1 billion-plus frauds and alleged frauds have been unearthed in the last year.
Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee in the Madoff fraud, is also raking in the dough. Picard last week asked for more than $15 million of fees for just 15 weeks of work — but got only $12.6 million.
Bart Schwartz, one of two receivers presiding over Merkin’s investment funds in New York, has had his fees capped by the court at just $150,000 a month but isn’t going to finish soon.
“There is a strong possibility that this receivership will last a fairly long time,” he said. “It is our job to make as much money for the investors as possible. Given current market conditions, it might be better to wait until things improve before we liquidate some of these assets.”
And while Schwartz is waiting, the meter is still running.
Procida believes the Golden Receivers should be paid on performance, not on time taken to complete their task. “They should get paid a percentage of their net proceeds, not gross. This would stop them from spending a million dollars to recoup hundreds.”
One of Madoff’s former investors filed court papers asking Picard to make public his time sheets, so the victims could see how the receiver spends his $1 million a week
Picard has said his work on the Madoff case could last at least five years, which means he could make upwards of $250 million if the court continues to allow his billing at the current rate.
“If he drags it out long enough,” said Helen Davis Chaitman, a lawyer representing hundreds of Madoff victims, “he will make more money than Madoff.”
Tags: Billy Procida, Doug Kelley, James Doran, New York Post, Ponzi Schemes, Receiver, Tom Petters
Share and Enjoy:

One Response to “Golden Receivers – Trustees make a killing mopping up frauds”
Laser Haas says:
November 25, 2009 at 5:32 pm
You have published a story that has hit the nail on the proverbial head.
Receivers, Trustees and others that are elite. Need not compete for jobs. As is evident by the comments within the story Procida. He was not removed for excess billings or bad performance. He was removed so that a “good ole boy” could be placed within.
.
Doug Kelley was initially hired by PGW and even went public stating Creditors are a last consideration. Then he was made a Federal Receiver – violating Ethics, Model Rules and common sense.
.
Being that the law is being cast assunder – the Judge gave Doug Kelley and his counter Hansen Judicial Immunity.
.
Exactly where does one find the Federal authority to hand out Judicial Immunity?
.
Then Doug Kelley – with willful blindness of the US Trustee (the police of the system) – where the US Trustee even then overtly Helped Doug Kelley to illegally become the Trustee.
.
Even the American Bar Association states that once a bankruptcy is filed the Receiver is moot.
.
This means the Bankruptcy Judge joined the fray in permitting skirts of the Law.
.
When ordinary citizens skirt (break) the Law – they go to jail!
.
We barked about Petters, Traub and others for years now. Even with all the arrests and pleads of guilt – felony violations and Collusions continue – including the Polaroid sale(s) etc.
.
This website fits the bill – for cronyism & corruption we must kill!
Sincerely
Laser@petters-fraud.com

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=133

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

US SEC judge rules Stanford executives are liable for fraud

In a victory for federal regulators, an administrative judge has found three former executives who worked for Allen Stanford's now-defunct brokerage liable for fraud and said they should banned from the industry.

The ruling comes more than a year after Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison for bilking investors through a Ponzi scheme with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua.

In her ruling, Securities and Exchange Commission Judge Carol Fox Foelak described as "egregious" the conduct of former Stanford Group Co. chief compliance officer Bernerd Young, former president Daniel Bogar and Jason Green, a former head of the private client group.

Foelak also ordered the three executives to pay fines and forfeit ill-gotten profits.

The SEC's case against the three executives did not allege they actually knew about Stanford's Ponzi scheme.

Instead, it hinged on whether they sufficiently ensured that marketingmaterials and other disclosures were adequate for investors.

All three executives have vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

Young, who was previously a regulator with the group now known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, told Reuters in the summer of 2012 that he took due diligence steps including reviewing quarterly financial statements and reading annual reports about the bank.

But he said in the exclusive interview that Antiguan privacy laws kept him from seeing more details about the investment portfolio, so he relied on the bank's compliance experts.

"If there is such a thing as a...perfect scam, this was the perfect scam," Young told Reuters last year.

Foelak ordered Young, Bogar and Green to each pay a $260,000 civil penalty.

In addition, Young was ordered to return roughly $592,000 plus interest. Bogar was ordered to forfeit about $1.5 million, and Green must pay $2.6 million.

Lawyers for both Young and Bogar said they were disappointed in the judge's ruling and are still considering their options.

If they decide to appeal, the case would first go before the full five-member SEC.

"Mr. Young...is deeply troubled by the initial decision's disturbing implications for the securities compliance industry and the newer and more Draconian standards that compliance officers may be facing," said Randle Henderson, Young's attorney.

"The decision demonstrates the real danger to compliance officers relying upon advice of independent outside counsel, fully licensed and qualified accounting firms and the audited financial opinions they issue, and the sovereign financial regulatory agencies of foreign countries."

Thomas Taylor, a lawyer for Bogar, said that while he felt his client got a "full and fair hearing," he disagreed with her outcome profoundly.

An attorney for Green could not be immediately reached.

Friday's ruling by the administrative judge marked the second big trial victory for the SEC in one week.

On Thursday, a jury in New York found former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. vice president Fabrice Tourre liable for federal securities law violations for his role in a complex mortgage deal that cost investors $1 billion when it failed.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=100

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Allen Stanford thinks he is his best attorney

Allen Stanford thinks he is his best attorney

Text Size Published: Wednesday, 31 Jul 2013 | 7:32 PM ET By: Scott Cohn | CNBC Senior Correspondent

Craig Hartley | Bloomberg | Getty Images

R. Allen StanfordConvicted fraudster Allen Stanford—who has at one time or another been represented by 18 different attorneys—has now decided the best person for the job is himself.

Writing from the federal prison in Florida where he is serving a 110-year sentence for his role in a $7 billion international Ponzi scheme, Stanford complained to the federal court hearing his appeal that his court-appointed attorney is not responsive enough, and is unprepared to effectively represent him. So Stanford, who has no legal training, says he is invoking his right to represent himself.

The merry-go-round of Stanford attorneys began spinning soon after his arrest in 2009, when a federal court froze his assets—which once topped $2 billion. Some attorneys quit when it became clear they could not be paid. Others were fired by the famously temperamental Stanford. At his 2012 trial, Stanford was represented by court-appointed attorneys Robert Scardino and Ali Fazel, though they too tried unsuccessfully to quit the case days before trial.

After Stanford was convicted on 13 counts and ordered to forfeit $5.9 billion tied to the fraud, the court appointed Houston attorney Lourdes Rodriguez to represent Stanford in his appeal. But the two never clicked.

In his affidavit written in prison, Stanford said Rodriguez "has been elusive at times, not answering the phone, e-mails, and never responding to my letters," and he complained she has not been willing to accept his assistance in the case.

Rodriguez did not respond to a request for a comment. In a letter to the court after Stanford first began complaining earlier this year, she said Stanford's real issues were not with her, but "revolve around his expressed disdain and repudiation of the United States criminal justice system."

Now, the two may finally be parting ways. On Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that in light of Stanford's motion to represent himself, it was suspending a September deadline to file his appeal.

—By CNBC's Scott Cohn; Follow him on Twitter @ScottCohnCNBC

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=95

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Investors Sue Insurance Company That Vouched for Stanford Ponzi Scam

By John Pacenti All Articles

Daily Business Review

July 12, 2013


The letters circulated by Stanford International Bank among would-be investors claimed deposits were insured by Lloyds of London and that the bank's employees were "first class business people."

The letters proclaimed the bank had undergone "stringent risk management review by an outside audit firm."

Stanford International Bank is now known as one of the world's largest Ponzi schemes, a $7 billion scam that is second only to the con pulled off by the former New York investment adviser and financier Bernard Madoff. The Stanford bank, which was based in Antigua and maintained a sizable footprint in Miami, went under in 2009.

So while the bank's founder and one-time billionaire, R. Allen Stanford, is serving a 110-year prison sentence for fraud, investors are looking for deep pockets to make them whole.

They hope they found it in Willis Group Holdings, the U.K.-based insurance company that provided Stanford with written endorsements. The investors are also suing Willis Group's American subsidiary based in Colorado.

Getting the litigation to stick in one jurisdiction, though, hasn't been easy. Filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in February, the plaintiffs' suit was transferred to U.S. District Court in Miami on June 3.

U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez stayed the case on June 14 after the Willis Group argued the U.S. Supreme Court is looking at the liability of insurance letters to investors in a related case against Willis Group.

Other lawsuits against Willis Group by similarly situated plaintiffs have ended up in multidistrict litigation in Dallas. One has also been stayed by a Miami federal judge.

A telephone call placed to attorney Edward Soto, a partner at Weil Gotshal & Manges in Miami who represents Willis Group, was not returned by deadline.

But in his motion to Martinez for a stay, Soto said the defendant expects the case and four others filed against Willis Group to be transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Texas that oversees the estate of Stanford International Bank.

The plaintiffs attorney, Ervin Gonzalez, said businesses that vouch for criminal enterprises like Stanford need to be held accountable.

"If someone is going to give an endorsement ... they'd better be careful because people rely on those endorsements," said Gonzalez, a partner at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, Fla. "They have an obligation and a duty to be accurate."

Also representing the plaintiffs is attorney Luis Delgado, a partner at Miami's Homer & Bonner.

"From in or around August 2004 through 2008, Willis provided 'safety and soundness' letters to Stanford Financial's agents on Willis letterhead and signed by a Willis executive," the lawsuit claims.

The letters misled clients into believing their deposits were safe and insured, the lawsuit states.

The 29 plaintiffs are from Uruguay, Bolivia, Colombia and Venezuela and had a combined loss of $30 million when SIB collapsed. The lawsuit states they received identical Willis Group letters with the only difference being the date and address.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=86

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

SEC Escapes Stanford Victims' Suit Over $7B Ponzi Scheme

SEC Escapes Stanford Victims' Suit Over $7B Ponzi Scheme

Law360, New York (June 21, 2013, 9:54 PM ET) -- A Louisiana judge Friday threw out a putative class action alleging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission facilitated Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, finding the agency was shielded by a law barring suits over federal officials' discretionary choices.

U.S. District Shelly D. Dick said the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act applied to the case brought by victims of Stanford in part because the alleged refusal of former official Spencer Barasch in the SEC's Fort Worth, Texas, office to investigate the Ponzi scheme was a matter of choice.

“While the Court sympathizes with the losses suffered by the plaintiffs in this matter, plaintiffs have failed to identify any mandatory obligations violated by SEC employees in the performance of their discretionary duties,” Judge Dick concluded in granting the government's motion to dismiss.

“Plaintiff[s] have also failed to allege facts demonstrating that the challenged actions are not grounded in public policy considerations,” she said.

The plaintiffs argued that Barasch's alleged conduct did not fall under the discretionary function exception because the SEC has a policy of making enforcement referrals to the National Association of Securities Dealers and the Texas State Securities Board. Therefore, if a decision was made to refer Stanford, and then not followed, that decision falls outside the discretionary function exception.

But Judge Dick rejected that argument, saying that while “the alleged conduct of Barasch is disturbing ... the FTCA clearly states that the discretionary function exception applies 'whether or not the discretion involved be abused.'”

The suit, which was filed in July under the FTCA, alleged that SEC employees in Fort Worth knew as early as 1997 — only two years after Stanford Group Co. registered with the agency — that the company was likely operating a Ponzi scheme and did nothing about it.

Former SEC regional enforcement director Barasch, now an attorney with Andrews Kurth LLP, was singled out in the complaint for failing in his duties.

"In 1998 [to NASD] and again in 2002 [to TSSB] the SEC — through enforcement director Barasch and others — reached the conclusion that referrals should be made. Barasch himself was designated to perform these tasks," the complaint said. "But, in fact, these referrals were not made, with the effect that Stanford escaped scrutiny by other agencies for years, thus facilitating Stanford's scheme to defraud."

In dismissing the case, Judge Dick cited a similar decision by a Texas federal judge in another case brought against the SEC over Stanford's scheme. The plaintiffs in Dartez v. U.S. had argued that Barasch's decisions and the negligent supervision of his superiors were not protected policy considerations.

“While the [Dartez] decision is not binding on this Court, the Court can find no flaw in [its] reasoning,” Judge Dick said.

The plaintiffs are represented by C. Frank Holthaus, Scott H. Fruge, Michael C. Palmintier and John W. DeGravelles of DeGravelles Palmintier Holthaus & Fruge and Edward J. Gonzales III.

The case is Anderson et al. v. United States of America, number 3:12-cv-00398, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Read more: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=80

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

News Summary: SEC paying $580,000 to settle suit by former assistant inspector general

By Associated Press

SEC SETTLES SUIT: The Securities and Exchange Commission is paying $580,000 to settle a lawsuit by a former assistant SEC inspector general who accused the agency of firing him in retaliation for bringing possible misconduct to light.
RAISED CONCERNS: The fired assistant inspector general, David Weber, had raised concerns about possible inappropriate relationships between the former SEC inspector general and women he worked with on investigations of the Ponzi schemes run by Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford. Weber also warned of a security flaw in some SEC computers that contained sensitive stock-exchange data.

REVIEW BY ANOTHER IG: A report by the U.S. Postal Service’s inspector general, provided to the SEC in September, substantiated some of Weber’s allegations.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/news-summary-sec-paying-580000-to-settle-suit-by-former-assistant-inspector-general/2013/06/10/54f23066-d22f-11e2-9577-df9f1c3348f5_story.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

$83.5M Suit Says Willis Group Aided Stanford Fraud

A group of holders of Stanford Financial Group CD accounts claims that Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Co. helped perpetuate Robert Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, according to an $83.5 million class action removed from Florida state court Monday.

The plaintiffs, 64 citizens of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, the United States and Spain who claim combined losses of more than $83.5 million, say that when they made their investments in Stanford Financial CDs, they relied on "safety and soundness" letters issued by Willis asserting that Stanford International Bank and its products were protected by certain insurance policies and were highly liquid.

"In fact, the Stanford Financial CDs were not CDs at all, but unregistered, unregulated securities sold illegally from Stanford Financial's home base in the United States," the plaintiffs say in their complaint. "These investments had no insurance and were fraught with risk."

The case is not the first to lay such accusations against Willis. In 2009, a class of between 1,200 and 5,000 Venezuelan clients sought $1.6 billion over claims they were allegedly lured into the scheme by the insurance brokers' assurance that Stanford CDs were sound, insured investments. And in another suit that year, Mexican investors implicated Willis, claiming the defendants contributed to a fraud that cost them roughly $1 billion.

Stanford was sentenced in June 2012 to 110 years in prison after being convicted on charges he misappropriated billions of dollars in investor funds, including some $1.6 billion he allegedly moved to a personal account. His $7 billion Ponzi scheme was second only to Bernie Madoff's record-setting scam.

From about August 2004 through 2008, Willis provided Stanford Financial with an undated form letter that said Willis was the insurance broker for Stanford International Bank and had placed directors and officers liability insurance and a bankers blanket bond with Lloyds of London, according to the current complaint.

The letters played a crucial role in Stanford's fraud because Stanford Finanical was an offshore bank and thus not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Willis' letters helped Stanford get around that obstacle by claiming the CDs "were even safer than U.S. Bank-issued CDs because of the unique insurance policies Willis had obtained," the complaint says.

"The Willis letters were specifically designed to win investors' trust and confidence in Stanford Financial's fraudulent scheme," the plaintiffs say in their complaint, noting that for investors with more than $1 million in their accounts, Stanford Financial advisors could get personally addressed letters from Willis.

"Willis' message to potential investors was this: Trust us, you can invest with confidence and security in Stanford Financial CDs," they add.

All of the plaintiffs in the current case made their purchases through Stanford Financial's Miami office, which the complaint says accounted for more than $1 billion in CD sales.

Willis of Colorado Inc. filed the notice of removal of the class action on the grounds of diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 and that the Northern District of Texas has exclusive jurisdiction in Stanford receivership cases.

The notice of removal also claims that defendants Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Co. and Willis Ltd., which are based in Ireland and the United Kingdom, respectively, have been fraudulently joined in an effort to defeat diversity jurisdiction. It says that the plaintiffs' claims are on letters issued only by the subsidiary Willis of Colorado and "no reasonable possibility" exists of the plaintiffs recovering damages from the other entities.

Counsel for both sides could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Luis Delgado and Christopher King of Homer & Bonner PA and Ervin Gonzalez of Colson Hicks Eidson PA.

Willis is represented by Edward Soto of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.

The case is Nuila de Gadala-Maria et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Co., case number 1:13-cv-21989, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Read the Willis Group NOTICE OF REMOVAL.

Read the Willis Group Exhibit A.

Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_64_victims_Say_Willis_Group_Aided_Stanford_Fraud.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Stanford Judge Approves Interim Distribution to Victims

A plan by a court-appointed receiver to distribute assets recovered from R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme to investors was approved by a federal judge in Dallas.

U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey accepted the plan by Ralph Janvey, the receiver appointed in 2009 to marshal and liquidate Stanford’s personal and business assets, to make a $55 million interim distribution to about 17,000 claimants, or about 1 cent for each of the $5.1 billion lost in the fraud scheme.
“We will follow it up in a subsequent distribution as the money comes in,” Janvey’s attorney, Kevin Sadler of Baker Botts LLP, told Godbey at a court hearing in April.

Ponzi scheme victims of Bernard L. Madoff, who was arrested in December 2008, recovered more than $5.4 billion. Clients of the MF Global Inc. brokerage were paid about $4.9 billion after its parent, MF Global Holdings Ltd., failed in October 2011. Victims of a scheme by Peregrine Financial Group Inc. founder Russell Wasendorf, who prosecutors last year said stole $215 million, received an interim distribution of $123 million.

A federal jury in Houston last year found Stanford, 63, guilty of lying to investors about the nature and oversight of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based bank. The jurors decided he must forfeit $330 million in accounts seized by the U.S. government.

The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at
aharris16@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net


Read more: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Judge_Approves_Interim_Distribution_to_Victims.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Stanford Art Collection Nets $2.9 Million for Ponzi Victims

Stanford Art Collection Nets $2.9 Million for Ponzi Victims
Text Size Published: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 | 3:09 PM ET By: Scott Cohn
CNBC Senior Correspondent

Source: Heritage Auctions
A print from the 1983 collection of ten prints entitled "Endangered Species"Former billionaire Allen Stanford, convicted last year of running one of the biggest investment frauds in history, had particularly expensive tastes in art.

Wednesday in Dallas, an auction of some of his most prized possessions brought in just over $2.9 million. The proceeds are to be turned over to victims of the $7 billion scam, who thus far have recovered next to nothing.

(Read More: Allen Stanford: Descent from Billionaire to Inmate # 35017-183)
Stanford's art collection consisted mostly of modern and contemporary works from the likes of Picasso, Dali and Miro. The top prices went to two collections of prints by Andy Warhol. A 1983 collection of ten prints entitled "Endangered Species' sold to an unidentified bidder for $338,500. A second collection from 1985 entitled "Ads" sold to another unidentified bidder, also for $338,500.

One of the most anticipated items—an eight foot glass and steel chandelier by American artist Dale Chihuly, sold for $158,500, slightly more than expected,according to the web site of Heritage Auctioneers in Dallas, which conducted the sale.

Last year, a federal jury found Stanford ran a $7 billion scam involving bogus certificates of deposit. Prosecutors said he used most of his customers' money to fund his lavish lifestyle.

A court-appointed receiver rounding up funds to return to victims has had limited success. Earlier this year, a federal judge cleared the way for the return of some $300 million that had been tied up in foreign accounts. But that represents just pennies on the dollar.



Once the 205th richest American according to Forbes, Stanford was sentenced last year to 110 years in prison. He is appealing his convictions on 13 counts including fraud, obstruction and conspiracy.

—By CNBC's Scott Cohn; Follow him on Twitter:@ScottCohnCNBC

Source: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=73

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Stanford chandelier sells for $158,500 at auction

Stanford chandelier sells for $158,500 at auction
The Associated Press DALLAS --
A chandelier by glass artist Dale Chihuly that once belonged to former Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford has sold at auction for $158,500 as part of an effort to compensate victims of his Ponzi scheme.

The 7-foot-tall, 6-foot-wide chandelier of cascading blue glass was sold Wednesday by Dallas-based Heritage Auctions.

Stanford was convicted last year on 13 fraud-related counts and sentenced to 110 years in prison.

The chandelier was offered through a federal court-appointed receivership overseeing the sale of assets previously owned by Stanford. A 42-foot-long sculpture by Terence Main called "Terrestrial Tale" that the receivership had also put up for auction did not sell Wednesday.

Stanford's assets have been sold at several auctions over the last few years.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Political Contributions

Last Updated 5/16/2013
As part of the Receiver’s efforts to recover assets for the Receivership Estate, the Receiver analyzed political contributions made by Stanford International Bank, Ltd., Stanford Group Company, Stanford Capital Management, LLC, R. Allen Stanford, James M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt and certain entities they own or control.
As a result of that effort, shortly after the inception of the Receivership, the Receiver sent letters to each recipient of these political contributions requesting that they be returned to the Receiver.
The Receiver has also pursued litigation to recover certain political contributions. As of May 16, 2013, the Receiver had received $1.8M in returned contributions. A list of contributions returned voluntarily or as a result of litigation is below:

Shelby for US Senate $14,000
Barney Frank for Congress Committee $1,000
Arcuri for Congress $4,000
Neugebauer Congressional Committee $2,000
Marsha Blackburn for Congress $1,000
Friends for Harry Reid $8,000
David Scott for Congress $1,500
Freedom Funds - Mike Crapo, Honorary Chairman $1,000
Chris Dodd for President $11,500
Friends of Chris Dodd $16,000
Friends of Mark Warner $2,500
Minnick for Congress $2,300
Lloyd Doggett for Congress $2,000
Alexander for Senate 2014, Inc. $3,000
Collins for Senator $2,500
Friends of Jay Rockefeller $5,000
Campaign Account of Robert Wexler $2,500
Mel Watt for Congress $3,000
Friends of John Boehner $5,000
Pete Olson for Congress $3,300
Charles Boustany Jr. MD for Congress $1,500
People for Patty Murray $2,000
Dave Camp for Congress $2,000
Wicker for Senate $8,800
Tiberi for Congress $2,000
Friends of Max Baucus $1,000
McCaul for Congress $1,000
Boccieri for Congress $2,300
Every Republican is Crucial-ERIC PAC $3,000
John McCain 2008, Inc $2,300
Friends of Bennie Thompson $2,500
Friends of John Tanner $2,500
Evan Bayh Committee $2,000
Friends of Mary Landrieu $2,500
Bachus Reelection $2,000
Friends of Senator Schumer $4,000
Halvorson for Congress $2,300
Putnam for Congress $2,500
Mike McMahon for Congress $2,550
Hatch Election Committee $2,100
Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate $9,100
Friends for Gregory Meeks $6,600
Charles A. Gonzalez Congressional Campaign $5,000
Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee $950,000
National Republican Congressional Committee $238,500
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $202,000
Republican National Committee $128,500
National Republican Senatorial Committee $83,345

Total $1,764,995


In February 2010 and May 2011, the Receiver sent letters to those recipients of political contributions who had yet to return them, requesting that they return an aggregate of $1.3 million in contributions as soon as possible. A list of the contributions that still remain outstanding is below:

OUTSTANDING REQUESTED AMOUNTS AS OF MAY 2013
New Jersey Democratic State Committee $10,000
Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) $10,000
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) $6,000
Americans for a Republic Majority PAC $5,000
Delegate Donna Christensen (D-USVI) $5,000
KPAC (affiliated with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas) $5,000
Lone Star Fund $5,000
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) (presidential campaign) $4,600
Representative Dan Maffei (D-NY) $4,550
Representative Richard Neal (D-MA) $4,000
Greg Davis for Congress $3,500
Leadership PAC 2006 $3,000
Representative James E. Clyburn (D-SC) $3,000
Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) $3,000
Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) $2,550
Former Senator John Sununu (R-NH) $2,500
Representative John Lewis (D-GA) $2,500
Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) $2,500
Representative Timothy Johnson (R-IL) $2,500
Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) $2,500
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $2,500
Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) $2,500
LEADPAC $2,000
Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ) $2,000
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) $2,000
Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX) $2,000
Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) $2,000
Senator Jack Reed $2,000
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) $2,000
Representative Kendrick Meek (D-FL) $1,500
Representative Peter King (R-NY) $1,500
Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX) $1,500
Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) $1,500
Former Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) $1,000
Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) $1,000
Representative Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) $1,000
Senator Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $1,000
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) $1,000
Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) $1,000

Total Campaign Contributions Requested Be Returned $117,700

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Canadian lawyer sues U.S. government over Allen Stanford ponzi scheme

Investors lost billions in the ponzi scheme orchestrated by Texas tycoon Allen Stanford, and now a Canadian lawyer believes he has an innovative legal strategy to recover funds for victims of the fraud who reside outside the United States.

Todd Weiler, who specializes in international law, believes that “unconscionable negligence and/or manifest incompetence” on the part of U.S. regulators may have breached the foreign investor protection provisions of several international trade treaties signed by the U.S. government.

If this had happened to Americans in Mexico, there’d be no doubt that those Americans would be bringing a NAFTA claim against Mexico

A request for arbitration and statement of claim the London, Ont. lawyer has delivered to the U.S. Department of State alleges that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was aware of problems at the Stanford Group of Companies (SGC) and at Stanford Financial Group (SFG) as early as 1997. Yet in a “shocking and egregious failure,” SEC officials failed to shut Stanford down until 2009, the claim alleges.

Mr. Weiler alleges that the U.S. refused to take steps to shut Stanford down earlier because U.S. officials believed the majority of Stanford’s victims were not U.S. nationals. The Canadian lawyer argues that international trade treaties, among them the North American Free Trade Agreement, require that the U.S. government treat investors from all signatory countries equally, regardless of their residency.

“If this had happened to Americans in Mexico, there’d be no doubt that those Americans would be bringing a NAFTA claim against Mexico, and that they would deserve to win,” Mr. Weiler said in an interview. “The Americans have for 100 years used these agreements and other policies to bring other governments to heel and make sure they get this kind of protection and legal security.”

The U.S. State Department web site shows that it has received notice of legal actions Mr. Weiler has filed on behalf of Stanford victims from Guatemala, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Chile and Peru, and which are brought under various trade agreements the U.S. has signed with those countries. However, the U.S. government has not yet acknowledged on the web site that it has received the NAFTA claim that Mr. Weiler has filed on behalf of Mexican and Canadian residents. All the claims contain allegations that have yet to be proven at a hearing.

A high-flying Texas businessman who built a series of financial institutions in the United States and the Caribbean, Stanford was eventually arrested and charged with fraud in 2009. He had been known as “Sir Allen Stanford” in recognition of his services to the government of Antigua and Barbuda. He was tried in U.S. federal court and sentenced to 110 years in prison upon his conviction for fraud in 2012. His knighthood was revoked in 2010.

Investors who placed funds with Stanford International Bank received “certificates of deposit” or CDs that were supposed to be low risk investments that offered generous returns. The scheme took in more than US$7-billion. Some 21,000 investors from around the world were taken in.

SEC officials, who are responsible for protecting the investments of investors, acted with unconscionable negligence

Stanford’s activities caught the attention of U.S. regulators as early as 1997, a mere two years after the Stanford Group of Companies registered with the SEC in 1995, according to a report completed in 2010 by David Kotz, who was at the time the SEC’s inspector general. The NAFTA claim filed by Mr. Weiler relies on that report, which concluded that the SEC could have sought legal action to shut down Stanford years earlier than it did.

“SEC officials, who are responsible for protecting the investments of investors such as the claimants against criminal enterprises such as SFG, acted with unconscionable negligence and or manifest incompetence, causing millions of dollars of losses to the claimants as a result,” the claim states.

Because Mr. Weiler’s claim is structured as a proposed international arbitration, the legal action is open only to non-U.S. residents from countries with which the U.S. has signed trade agreements. Mr. Weiler says the action, which he is bringing in conjunction with several other lawyers from the United States, could include “several thousand” clients.

Other third parties have been targeted for their connection to Stanford. Liquidators of Stanford International Bank have sued Toronto-Dominion bank in Quebec and other jurisdictions on the theory that, as Stanford’s banker, TD should have known the Texan businessman was up to no good. TD denies the allegation.

Source: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Canadian_lawyer_sues_US_government_Stanford.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

SEC Charges Traders in Massive Kickback Scheme Involving Venezuelan Official

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged four individuals with ties to a New York City brokerage firm in a scheme involving millions of dollars in illicit bribes paid to a high-ranking Venezuelan finance official to secure the bond trading business of a state-owned Venezuelan bank.

According to the SEC's complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, the global markets group at broker-dealer Direct Access Partners (DAP) executed fixed income trades for customers in foreign sovereign debt. DAP Global generated more than $66 million in revenue for DAP from transaction fees - in the form of markups and markdowns - on riskless principal trade executions in Venezuelan sovereign or state-sponsored bonds for Banco de Desarrollo Económico y Social de Venezuela (BANDES). A portion of this revenue was illicitly paid to BANDES Vice President of Finance, María de los Ángeles González de Hernandez, who authorized the fraudulent trades.

"These traders triggered a fraud that was staggering in audacity and scope," said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office. "They thought they covered their tracks by using offshore accounts and a shadow accounting system to monitor their illicit profits and bribes, but they underestimated the SEC's tenacity in piecing the scheme together."

The SEC's complaint charges the following individuals for the roles in the kickback scheme:

.- Tomas Alberto Clarke Bethancourt, who lives in Miami and is an executive vice president at DAP. Known as "Tomas Clarke," he was responsible for executing the fraudulent trades and maintaining spreadsheets tracking the illicit markups and markdowns on those trades.
.- Iuri Rodolfo Bethancourt, who lives in Panama and received more than $20 million in fraudulent proceeds from DAP via his Panamanian shell company, which then paid Gonzalez a portion of this amount.
.- Jose Alejandro Hurtado, who lives in Miami and served as the intermediary between DAP and Gonzalez. Hurtado was paid more than $6 million in kickbacks disguised as salary payments from DAP, and he remitted some of that money to Gonzalez.
.- Haydee Leticia Pabon, who is Hurtado's wife and received approximately $8 million in markups or markdowns on BANDES trades that were funneled to her from DAP in the form of sham finders' fees.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Gonzalez as well as Clarke and Hurtado.

According to the SEC's complaint, the scheme began in October 2008 and continued until at least June 2010. BANDES was a new customer to DAP brought in by DAP Global executives through their connections to Hurtado. As a result of the kickbacks to Gonzalez, DAP obtained BANDES' lucrative trading business and provided Gonzalez with the incentive to enter into trades with DAP at considerable markups or markdowns without regard to the prices paid by BANDES. Gonzalez used her senior role at the Caracas-based bank to ensure that its bond trades would continue to be steered to DAP. As the scheme evolved over time, the traders deceived DAP's clearing brokers, executed internal wash trades, inter-positioned another broker-dealer in the trades to conceal their role in the transactions, and engaged in massive roundtrip trades to pad their revenue.

For example, the SEC alleges that in January 2010, the traders and Gonzalez arranged for two fraudulent roundtrip trades with BANDES as both buyer and seller. These trades - which lacked any legitimate business purpose - caused BANDES to pay DAP more than $10 million in fees, a portion of which was diverted to Gonzalez for authorizing the blatantly fraudulent trades.

The SEC further alleges that, giving rise to the adage of no honor among thieves, Clarke and Hurtado frequently falsified the size of DAP's fees in their reports to Gonzalez, which enabled the traders to retain a greater share of the fraudulent profits.

The SEC's complaint charges Clarke, Bethancourt, Hurtado, and Pabon with fraud and seeks final judgments that would require them to return ill-gotten gains with interest and pay financial penalties.

The SEC's investigation, which is continuing, was conducted by Wendy Tepperman, Amanda Straub, and Michael Osnato of the New York Regional Office. The SEC's litigation will be led by Howard Fischer. An SEC examination of DAP that that led to the investigation was conducted by members of the New York office's broker-dealer examination staff. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Fort Worth SEC staff have been criticized in report on Stanford. The Securities and Exchange Commission made public the failure of enforcement staff in Fort Worth to act on findings by SEC examiners, who inspect the health of banks and other financial companies of Stanford.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

What The SEC-SIPC Lawsuit Is All About

Source: Securities Investor Protection Corporation

What The SEC-SIPC Lawsuit Is All About

• The SEC has brought an unprecedented lawsuit demanding that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") guarantee the value of offshore certificates of deposit ("CDs") issued by the Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua.
• SIPC disagrees with the SEC’s position because it is in conflict with the Securities Investor Protection Act, the legislation that created SIPC and has guided it for the last 40 years.
• SIPC is limited by law to protecting customers against the loss of missing cash or securities in the custody of failing or insolvent SIPC-member brokerage firms. SIPC was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud or guarantee an investment’s value, and its protections also do not cover investments with offshore banks or other firms that are not SIPC members.

Why The Securities Investor Protection Act Does Not Cover The Stanford-Antigua Situation

---

• This case is about investments in certificate of deposits ("CDs") issued by the Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua. Stanford International Bank Ltd. is an offshore bank: it is not a SIPC-member brokerage firm and has never been a SIPC member.
• The Securities Investor Protection Act only covers the custodial function of a SIPC-member brokerage, by offering limited protection to customers against the loss of missing cash or securities when a SIPC-member brokerage firm is holding cash or securities for an investor but fails financially.
• The Act does not authorize SIPC to protect monies invested with offshore banks or other firms that are not SIPC members. The Act also does not protect investors against a loss in value of a security, including because of mismanagement or fraud.
• In addition, this case involves CDs that were delivered, not a situation in which a SIPC-member brokerage firm had custody of securities but failed before delivery could occur.

The Facts

• This case is about investments in CDs issued by the Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua. Stanford International Bank Ltd. is a chartered bank formed under the laws of Antigua and Barbuda. This Antiguan bank is in liquidation in Antigua under the administration of liquidators in Antigua.
• Stanford International Bank Ltd. advertised interest rates that were higher (often much higher) than banks in the U.S., but its CDs now have the value, if any, of a debt instrument issued by a failed bank.
• Stanford International Bank Ltd. is not a SIPC-member brokerage firm and has never been a SIPC member.
• Investors received Disclosure Statements from Stanford International Bank Ltd. stating that these investments were not “covered by the investor protection or securities insurance laws of any jurisdiction such as the U.S. Securities Investor Protection Insurance Corporation….”

SIPC Letter of August 14, 2009 to Ralph S. Janvey, Receiver, Stanford Financial Group Receivership

Stanford - Madoff: The Key Differences

SIPC protection is available for investors who had brokerage accounts directly at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff Securities”). Madoff Securities was a SIPC-member brokerage firm. Customer cash and securities were placed in the custody of Madoff Securities and were missing from the customer’s accounts when the firm failed. SIPC protection is thus available to protect customers, within limits, against the loss of their net equity balances.
By contrast, the Stanford case is about CDs that investors purchased from the Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua. Stanford International Bank Ltd. is not a SIPC-member brokerage firm and has never been a SIPC member.
The Securities Investor Protection Act does not authorize SIPC to protect investors against the loss of monies invested with offshore banks or other firms that are not SIPC members. The Act also does not protect investors against a loss in value of a security, including because of mismanagement or fraud. In addition, this case involves CDs that were delivered, not a situation in which a SIPC-member brokerage firm had custody of securities but failed before delivery could occur.

Why SIPC Is Not The FDIC And Does Not Protect Against Securities Fraud

---

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, state securities regulators and experts have estimated that investment fraud in the U.S. totals $40 billion a year.¹ Market manipulation schemes alone generate an estimated $6 billion in losses annually.²
With a reserve of slightly more than $1 billion, SIPC could not continue operations for long if its purpose was to compensate all victims with losses due to investment fraud. SIPC is limited by law to protecting customers against the loss of missing cash or securities in the custody of failing or insolvent SIPC-member brokerage firms.
It is important to understand that SIPC is not the equivalent of the banking industry's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") for investment fraud. Congress considered whether to guarantee investment losses and rejected that sort of protection as unrealistic and inappropriate.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Law professors support SIPC in dispute with SEC over Stanford fraud

An amici brief filed by renowned law professors supports the industry-backed Securities Investor Protection Corp. in its dispute with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the liquidation of convicted Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford’s brokerage firm.

Phyllis Skupien (Westlaw Journal Securities Litigation and Regulation).

In an appeal before the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the SEC seeks. to force the SIPC to liquidate Stanford Group Co. for the benefit of investors.

Like Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, which cost investors an estimated $17 billion, Allen Stanford’s fraud dwarfed most others and is estimated to have cost investors over $7 billion.

The SEC says Stanford’s victims are entitled to protection under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa, which compensates investors when their brokers become insolvent.

Prior proceedings

In 2009 the SEC charged Stanford and Stanford Group, which is currently in court-ordered receivership, with violating federal securities laws. SEC v. Pendergest-Holt et al., No. 09-CV-298, complaint filed (N.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2009).

Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison in a related criminal proceeding last year for defrauding investors with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, his bank in Antigua. United States v. Stanford et al., No. 09-CR-00342, defendant sentenced (S.D. Tex., Houston June 14, 2012).

According to the SEC’s suit against the SIPC, the agency directed the SIPC in June 2011 to initiate proceedings to liquidate the Stanford Group, but the SIPC has refused to do so.

In July 2012 U.S. District Judge Robert L. Wilkins of the District of Columbia denied the SEC’s request for an order compelling the liquidation, and this appeal followed.

Not ‘customers’

The SIPC maintains it has no responsibility to the investors because the SEC cannot show that the Stanford Group ever physically possessed their funds at the time of their purchases.

The amici brief supports the SIPC and says the investors were not “customers” of the domestic broker-dealer because they lent money to the offshore Antigua bank — a foreign institution not subject to regulation under U.S. law.

The amici brief was filed by Professor Joseph A. Grundfest of Stanford Law School, former SEC Commissioner Paul S. Atkins, former SEC General Counsel Simon M. Lorne, Emory Law School professor William J. Carney and Stanford Law School professor emeritus Kenneth E. Scott.

They say the SEC’s actions would dramatically expand the scope of persons covered by the SIPC and should be rejected.

The SEC’s proposal to “deem” purchasers of CDs issued by a foreign bank to be “customers” of a domestic broker-dealer is contrary to the Securities Investor Protection Act and is “at odds with 40 years of judicial precedent,” the amici say.

The SEC’s expansion of the definition of the term “customer” would substantially increase the financial exposure of the SIPC fund, they add.

The agency has presented no economic analysis for the implications of this expanded coverage, the professors say, noting that the industry itself must pay fees to support the SIPC fund.

The professors urge the appeals court to reject the SEC’s “unprecedented interpretation” of the term “customer” and affirm Judge Wilkins’ decision.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Financial Services Institute also filed amici briefs supporting the SIPC.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., No. 12-5286, amici brief filed (D.C. Cir. Apr. 19, 2013)

Source: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=69

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Provisional Liquidators to Stanford Development Company (“SDC”) Explain Provisional Liquidation Process

Marcus Wide of Grant Thornton (British Virgin Islands) Limited and Hordley Forbes of Forbes and Associates (Antigua) were appointed as Provisional Liquidators of SDC. Within that role, they have taken over the company and are duty-bound to preserve its assets. Further, until further notice, SDC’s former directors’ powers are withdrawn and there is a stay of proceedings in place as to any actions that may be commenced against SDC without a court order.

The next step is likely the resolution of an application to wind up SDC. Though the result is not known, in most instances, the company will transition from provisional liquidation to liquidation at which point a liquidator(s) will be appointed. The role of the liquidators will be to wind up the company and settle all debts.

In the interim, the Provisional Liquidators continue to confer with creditors, the Antiguan government and other interested parties to bring a speedy resolution to SDC’s provisional liquidation by, among other things, paying creditors and getting SDC’s books and records in order. Notably, since a provisional liquidation does not involve a claims process, there is no need to submit a claim at this time.

For further information related to SDC, please see the SDC tab at www.sibliquidation.com for information posted by the Provisional Liquidators.

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/

Allen Stanford Told to Disgorge $6.7 Billion in SEC Case

R. Allen Stanford, the Texas financier convicted last year of leading an investment fraud scheme, was ordered to disgorge more than $6.7 billion by the judge in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas issued the order yesterday against Stanford, his Stanford Group Co. and the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.

The order may clear the way for Godbey to grant a court- appointed receiver’s request to make an interim $55 million payout to investors who lost money after buying certificates of deposit issued by the Stanford Bank.

“The fraud perpetrated was obviously egregious, was done with a high degree of scienter, caused billions in losses and occurred over the course of a decade,” Godbey said, using the legal term to describe the mental state of intent to deceive.

A federal jury in Houston convicted Stanford of lying to investors about how their money was being handled.

“The truth is that he flushed it away,” Justice Department lawyer William Stellmach told jurors in his closing arguments at the March 2012 trial. “He told depositors he was using their money in one way and the truth was completely different.”

Stanford, 63, was sentenced to 110 years in prison. Maintaining his innocence, he has appealed the verdict.


Parallel Judgment


Godbey referred to the jury’s guilty finding in granting the SEC’s request he render a parallel judgment in their case filed in February 2009, four months before the financier was indicted. The judge also cited the August 2009 guilty plea by Stanford Group Chief Financial Officer James Davis.


“The court finds that $5.9 billion is a reasonable approximation of the gains connected to Stanford’s fraud,” Godbey said of the sum he would order disgorged. He then added more than $861 million in interest for a total of $6.76 billion. Davis too is jointly liable.

Finally the judge imposed a $5.9 billion penalty on Stanford and a $5 million assessment against Davis, who received a five-year prison sentence.

The court-appointed receiver, Ralph Janvey, asked Godbey this month for permission to begin repaying some of the losses incurred by the more than 17,000 claimants. At an April 11 hearing, the judge told Janvey’s lawyer, Kevin Sadler, he was concerned about doing so before a final order had been entered against Stanford.


Societe Generale


In a separate filing today, a group of Stanford investors asked Godbey to grant them a judgment of at least $95 million in a lawsuit against a unit of Paris-based Societe Generale SA. (GLE)

The lender’s Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) unit took the money from a Stanford bank account with his permission in December 2008 to repay a loan made to him four years earlier, according to court papers.

The financier had caused a business funded by Stanford investor-depositor money to guarantee the loan in 2007, the investors alleged, while those depositors received no benefit. The transfer of that money to Societe Generale just two months before the SEC sued Stanford and shut down his businesses was a fraudulent transfer, the investors claimed in today’s filing.

Ken Hagan and Jim Galvin, New York-based spokesman for the French bank, did not immediately reply to voicemail messages seeking comment on the allegations.


Slush Fund


Davis, the CFO, testified at Stanford’s trial that the financier maintained a Societe Generale Swiss bank account, funded by investor deposits.

“It was a slush fund, just used for whatever the holder wanted to use it for,” Davis said during the Houston federal court trial in February 2012.

The SEC case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stanford International Bank, 09-cv-00298, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The criminal case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09-cr-00342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

The investors’ case is Rotstain v. Trustmark National Bank, 09-cv-02384, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at aharris16@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net


Source: http://sivg.org/article/2013_Stanford_Disgorge_6Billion.html

For a full and open debate on the Stanford Receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group - SIVG official forum http://sivg.org/forum/