Stanford Group Co.

Texas Financier Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam: SIPC Asks District Court to Toss Out SEC Lawsuit Seeking to Reimburse Fraud Victims

Published on: March 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities Investor Protection Corp. is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to reject the SEC’s request for an order that would make it pay back the victim of Texas financier R. Allen Stanford’s $7 Billion Ponzi scam. The brokerage industry-funded nonprofit claims that the Commission has not demonstrated that these investors are eligible to receive this type of coverage from SIPC.

Standing by SIPC is the National Association of Independent Broker/Dealers. The group wrote a letter to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro contending that forcing the nonprofit to pay back Stanford’s victims is not only a “misfit solution,” but also, it will establish an “unsustainable precedent.”

The SEC’s securities lawsuit against SIPC is an attempt to force a brokerage’s liquidation, which is the first step that SIPC must take under the Securities Investor Protection Act to pay back the clients of its member firms. SIPC, however, has refused to do so on the grounds that Stanford International Bank, which is based in Antigua, is not one if its member firms. Stanford International Bank is the financial firm that issued the more than $7.2 billion CDs that were sold to investors. (It is Stanford Group Co. that belongs to SIPC.) The CDs now have no value.

SEC and SIPC Go to Court Over Whether SIPA Protects Stanford Ponzi Fraud Investors

Published on: February 6, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission is asking District Judge Robert Wilkins to make the federal Securities Investor Protection Corp. set up a claims process for the Ponzi fraud victims of R. Allen Stanford. These investors had purchased $7.2B in certificates of deposit that allegedly ended up being bogus. The SEC is suing SIPC in an attempt to get it to pay Stanford’s investors for their losses.

SIPC is a nonprofit corporation that gets its funding from the brokerage industry. It is supposed to insure clients against losses resulting from broker theft.

The Commission contends that per the Security Investor Protection Act’s Section 16(b), these investors are protected because the money they deposited at Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua to buy the CD’s was considered to have been deposited with Stanford Group Co., which is a SIPC member. The Commission wants the nonprofit corporation, to begin liquidation proceedings in federal court in Texas.

More than $1B in securities fraud claims from thousands of claimants related to the Stanford Ponzi fraud would likely be filed if the judge were to approve the SEC’s request.

The issue here is whether the clients who were victimized by the Stanford Ponzi scam are eligible to have SIPC cover the losses they sustained. SIPC says no. The group doesn’t believe that the Stanford Investments meets the criteria set up by federal law over who can qualify for payouts from such losses.

Attorneys for SIPC claims that the SEC is trying to set up a liquidation proceeding without there having to be a judicial review regarding whether the law would consider Stanford’s investors “customers.” SIPC wants the judge to order the SEC to refile its complaint, allow for discovery, and then determine this point.

Meantime, Stanford’s criminal trial is underway in Texas. Prosecutors are accusing him of bilking investors by getting them to invest in $7B in fake CDs while he used their funds to support his business and pay for an extravagant lifestyle. Stanford has denied any wrongdoing.

At his trial last week, former Stanford Financial Group Co. CFO James M. Davis testified against Stanford. Davis’s testimony against Stanford is part of the plea deal that he struck. Not only was Stanford Davis’s former boss, but also the two were once roommates at Baylor University.

According to Davis, Stanford told executives to falsify investment returns and that his boss threatened to terminate their employment if they ever reported that he borrowed over $2B from his Antigua bank to pay for his extravagant quality of life. Davis, who pleaded guilty to helping Stanford defraud investors, is facing up to three decades behind bars.

SEC Asks Federal Judge to Order SIPC Payout Plan for Stanford Investors, Bloomberg, January 24, 2012
SEC Suit Pursues Payouts by SIPC, Wall Street Journal, December 13, 2011
Allen Stanford Was ‘Chief Faker,’ Ex-Finance Chief Testifies, Bloomberg, February 6, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Jury Trial Begins in Ponzi Scammer Allen Stanford’s Criminal Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 23, 2012

SEC Sues SIPC Over R. Allen Stanford Ponzi Payouts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 20, 2011
SEC Issues Emergency Order to Stop $26M “Green” Ponzi Scam, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Jury Trial Begins in Ponzi Scammer Allen Stanford’s Criminal Case

Published on: January 23, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two-and-a-half years after he was arrested for allegedly running a $7 billion Ponzi scam, the criminal trial of Allen Stanford has begun. The Texas financier is charged with 14 counts of fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy. He denies any wrongdoing.

Stanford is accused of issuing $7 billion in fraudulent CDs through his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank to investors in over a hundred nations. He then allegedly defrauded them.

Even since his arrest these investors have not recovered any of their money. According to Reuters, a guilty conviction won’t necessarily help his Ponzi victims recoup their losses. Hopefully, however, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lawsuit against the Securities Investor Protection Corp. will remedy this.

Houston Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm to Represent Stanford Bank Investors Living in Latin America

Published on: February 22, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the wake of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s accusations that R. Allen Stanford allegedly operated multibillion-dollar fraud scheme through Stanford Group. Co., Stanford investors in Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela have been contacting the Stanford International Bank’s affiliates in their countries in an attempt to close their accounts. Stanford has Latin American offices in Mexico, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Panama. Stanford and his cohorts are accused of selling securities worth $8 billion in certificates through a bank in Antigua.

Among the reactions from certain Stanford affiliates and Latin American governments:

Stanford Bank Venezuela SA, a separate bank that is commercially affiliated with Stanford Financial Group. Co, says it possesses enough liquidity to be in compliance with international and local standards. In Panama, the country’s banking authority says Stanford Bank of Panama SA had $41.8 million in capital in January 2009 (The Panamanian government, however, does not insure the deposits). In Bogota, the securities exchange says that stock transactions by the Stanford Financial Group’s brokerage unit In Columbia appeared to operating per usual last week. Unfortunately, however, thousands of Stanford clients in Latin America may be victims of this international, multibillion-dollar scam.

Multibillion-Dollar Stanford Securities Fraud Scam Has Investors Contacting Houston Stockbroker Fraud Lawyers for Help

Published on: February 19, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is charging Robert Allen Stanford and three of his companies for their alleged involvement in a multibillion dollar investment fraud scheme. His companies that are named in the complaint include Stanford International Bank (SIB), Stanford Group Company (SGC), which is a Houston-based investment adviser and broker dealer, and Stanford Capital Management, which is based in Antigua. The SEC is asking for emergency relief for the investors that have been victimized by the alleged scheme.

The SEC complaint, filed in Dallas, Texas accuses Stanford and friends and family that he works with of orchestrating the investor scam. The SEC claims that SIB used SGC financial advisers to sell some $8 billion worth of “certificates of deposit” to investors with the promise they would receive high interest rates that were, in fact, unsubstantiated and improbable. The SEC says the defendants misrepresented these CD’s when they told investors that they were safe.

The SEC complaint also contends that another scam involving $1.2 billion in sales of Stanford Allocation Strategy (SAS), which is a proprietary mutual fund wrap program, involved the use of materially bogus historical performance information that helped SGC to grow the SAS program from under $10 million in 2004 to over $1 billion. In 2007 and 2008 , SGC earned fees of about $25 million as a result. The program’s bogus performance was used to bring in registered investment advisers with substantial books of business. These advisers were then provided with substantial incentives to transfer client assets to SIB’s CD program.