Interesting Facts:
Thief who steals thief has one hundred years of pardon.
Lying and stealing are next door neighbors.

Las víctimas olvidadas de Stanford, ahora disponible en español en:

Saturday, October 31, 2015

The true aim of some liars victims who say they are here to help

Good News! With Stanford's appeal overturned the Swiss bank can finally return the money in Stanford's account to the liquidators











You are a damn and selfish person who only think about you and seek to fill your pockets with the money the liquidators are stealing. The liquidators are suing the innocent victims who withdrew money before the collapse. We did not know about the collapse, otherwise we would have closed the accounts. The liquidators are making a business behind the suffering of the victims and you stopped being a victim to become a corrupt miserable person that support the liquidators in exchange for benefits and money.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Receiver files 12th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan


On July 21, 2015, the Receiver filed his 12th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 12th 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 12th. Schedule, please click here.

What happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

Who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Monday, March 30, 2015

Gaytri Kachroo lost the case Zelaya et al. v. U.S.

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court said on Monday the United States is not liable to victims of Allen Stanford's fraud who claimed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was incompetent for having taken too long to uncover the swindler's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami said the government is entitled to sovereign immunity.

U.S. not liable for alleged SEC negligence in Stanford fraud: court


A federal appeals court said on Monday the United States is not liable to victims of Allen Stanford's fraud who claimed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was incompetent for having taken too long to uncover the swindler's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami said the government is entitled to sovereign immunity.
Stanford's victims accused the SEC of negligence for having waited until 2009 to uncover the Ponzi scheme, despite having had evidence of it as early as 1997.
But the court said the SEC had discretion to decide how to enforce securities laws, and could not be liable for certain misrepresentations. It said this justified shielding it from claims raised by the victims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
"We reach no conclusions as to the SEC's conduct, or whether the latter's actions deserve plaintiffs' condemnation," Circuit Judge Julie Carnes wrote for a three-judge panel. "We do, however, conclude that the United States is shielded from liability for the SEC's alleged negligence."
Victims claimed that the SEC thought Stanford's business was 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 plaintiffs were led by Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, who claimed to lose a combined $1.65 million, and sought class-action status. Monday's decision upheld rulings in 2013 by U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami.
Gaytri Kachroo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the SEC in the appeal, did not immediately respond to similar requests.
In 2013, federal appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and Pasadena, California, dismissed lawsuits accusing the SEC of incompetence in investigating Bernard Madoff.
Stanford, 65, is appealing his March 2012 conviction and 110-year prison term for what prosecutors called a scam centered on his sale of fraudulent high-yielding certificates of deposit through his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank.
The SEC's inspector general in 2010 criticized the regulator for being too slow to uncover Stanford's fraud.
The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-14780.


Friday, December 12, 2014

Receiver files 11th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan


On December 12, 2014, the Receiver filed his 11th Schedule of distribution payments under the 1st Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 11th 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 10th. Schedule, please click here.

What happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

Who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan


Receiver files 1st Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan - On November 5, 2014, the Receiver filed his 1st Schedule of distribution payments pursuant to the 2nd Interim Distribution Plan with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 1st Schedule will be followed by others, each of which will be submitted by the Receiver on a rolling basis. To view a copy of the 1st Schedule, please click here.

What happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

Who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Friday, September 5, 2014

Receiver files 10th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan - On September 5, 2014


Receiver files 10th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the 1st Interim Distribution Plan - On September 5, 2014, the Receiver filed his 10th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 10th 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 10th. Schedule, please click here.

What happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

Who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Wednesday, June 4, 2014


Receiver files 9th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan - On June 3, 2014, the Receiver filed his 9th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 9th 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 9th. Schedule, please click here.

What happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

Who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

U.S. justices say Allen Stanford victims can sue lawyers, brokers

BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

Convicted financier Allen Stanford, who is serving 110 years in prison for his $7 billion Ponzi scheme, arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing June 14, 2012. REUTERS/RICHARD CARSON
Convicted financier Allen Stanford, who is serving 110 years in prison for his $7 billion Ponzi scheme, arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing June 14, 2012.
CREDIT: REUTERS/RICHARD CARSON

RELATED TOPICS

(Reuters) - Investors in Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme can sue to recoup losses from lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with the convicted swindler, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
On a 7-2 vote, the court held that lawsuits filed in state courts can go forward. The majority said the ruling would not affect the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) ability to enforce securities law as some had feared.
Stanford's fraud involved the sale of bogus certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. He is serving a 110-year prison sentence.
New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were sued by former Stanford investors. The investors also sued financial services firm SEI Investments Co and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.
"It's clear the justices understood that ruling for the defendants would create an immunity that Congress never imagined," said Tom Goldstein, a lawyer representing the former Stanford clients.
Representatives from the two law firms said that when the case returns to the lower court the defendants would move to dismiss the suit on other grounds.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) did not prevent the state lawsuits from proceeding. The law says that state lawsuits are barred when the alleged misrepresentations are "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security, which is defined as a security listed on a national exchange at the time the alleged unlawful conduct occurred.
As the defendants in the case were not selling securities traded on U.S. exchanges, "it is difficult to see why the federal securities laws would be - or should be - concerned with shielding such entities from lawsuits," Breyer wrote.
IMPACT ON SEC
The Obama administration, representing the SEC, had sided with the defendants to try to protect the agency's authority to pursue wide-ranging investigations.
The administration said the "in connection with" language in SLUSA that limits state court lawsuits mirrors language in federal law that gives broad authority of the SEC to pursue such misrepresentations.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a dissenting opinion that the ruling would have a negative impact on the SEC because it "casts doubt on the applicability of federal securities law to cases of serious securities fraud." Kennedy was joined in dissent by Justice Samuel Alito.
Securities law experts backed the majority's view that the ruling was relatively narrow.
Donald Langevoort, a professor of law at Georgetown University, said he was "very surprised" the SEC tried to argue that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could diminish the government's enforcement powers.
"The opinion is imminently correct as a matter of common sense and legal policy," Langevoort said.
Charles Smith, of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP who represents clients before the SEC, said the agency would be comforted by the limited scope of the ruling.
"The decision is crafted in a way that is intended not to interfere with the SEC's enforcement authority," he said.
The SEC, via a spokesman, declined to comment.
The defendants had 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 previously held that similar "aiding and abetting" claims cannot be made under federal law.
The class-action lawsuits filed by the former investors accused Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both law firms, of obstructing a SEC probe into Stanford, and sought to hold the other defendants responsible as well.
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.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley, additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; editing byHoward Goller, G Crosse and Amanda Kwan)


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



SLUSA: Justices say Allen Stanford victim lawsuits can go forward

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with convicted swindler Allen Stanford cannot avoid lawsuits by investors seeking to recoup losses incurred in his $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

Convicted financier Allen Stanford, who faces up to 230 years in prison for his  billion Ponzi scheme, arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing June 14, 2012. REUTERS/Richard Carson
Thomson Reuters
Convicted financier Allen Stanford arrives at Federal Court in Houston for sentencing.

On a 7-2 vote the court held that lawsuits filed in state court can go forward. New York-based law firms Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose and insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc were all sued by former Stanford investors. The investors also sued financial services firm SEI Investments and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller)
This post originally appeared at Reuters. Copyright 2014. Follow Reuters on Twitter.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-justices-say-allen-stanford-victim-lawsuits-can-go-forward-2014-26#ixzz2uT6YFosE



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

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Receiver files 8th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan


Receiver files 8th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan - On February 4, 2014, the Receiver filed his 8th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 8th 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 6th. Schedule, please click here.

What happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

Who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Receiver files 7th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan


Receiver files 7th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan - On December 4, 2013, the Receiver filed his 7th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 7th 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 6th. Schedule, please click here.

What happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

Who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

CRT Offer to Buy Stanford International Bank Investor Claims



(Caracas, November 26 - Noticias24) -. CRT Special Investments announced Tuesday through a press release that it would buy claims from Stanford International Bank (SIB) to investors, who can "receive their money within weeks instead of having to wait years and face the uncertainty of recovery, "said Joe Sarachek, General Director of the CRT.

 Following is the full text of the statement: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=165

Participante líder en la venta y compra de reclamos de Stanford Proporcionando a Vendedores(Inversionistas) Liquidez Garantizada

Nueva York, Nueva York, noviembre de 2013 – CRT Special Investments LLC (” CRT Special Investments “) ha anunciado hoy que está enfocado en proporcionar liquidez a los ex depositantes de Stanford International Bank en América Latina con un staff dedicado de habla hispana y cuenta con sitio web.

Stanford International Bank (” SIB “) era un banco con sede en Antigua, que operó desde 1986 hasta el 2009, con sede en Houston, Texas. Los depositantes de SIB recibieron certificados de depósito. Aproximadamente $ 7 mil millones fueron depositados en SIB. En febrero del 2009, la Securities and Exchange Commission de los EE.UU. obtuvo una orden para congelar todos los activos personales y corporativos de Stanford en los EE.UU. y un receptor para Stanford. Hasta la fecha, aproximadamente $ 500 millones en activos líquidos han sido identificados por el Síndico y Liquidadores Conjuntos, dejando a los ahorradores con una pérdida substancial proyectada.

El Administrador Judicial ha comenzado recientemente a hacer una distribución del 1 % a los inversionistas, pero más distribuciones son inciertas.

Un procedimiento paralelo al procedimiento de EE.UU. se inició en febrero de 2009 en Antigua. Los depositantes también han presentado reclamos con Grant Thornton, que ha sido designado como Liquidador Conjunto en Antigua. Hasta la fecha, ninguna distribución se ha realizado en Antigua. Debido al hecho de que no se sabe cuándo se harán nuevas distribuciones o el momento de la distribución, los depositantes que buscan liquidez se enfrentan a la elección de la venta de los compradores en el mercado secundario.

El proceso de transferencia de reclamos es extremadamente lento, ya que requiere la presentación de documentos en dos jurisdicciones separadas, Dallas y Antigua. “Ninguna otra compañía tiene la experiencia y la dedicación para el mercado de América Latina en Stanford “, dijo Joe Sarachek , Director General de la CRT Special Investments. “Nuestro objetivo es proporcionar recuperación garantizada y liquidez para los clientes de Stanford lo más rápido posible. ” Sarachek añadió ” Si usted vende su reclamo a CRT, usted podrá recibir su dinero en cuestión de semanas en lugar de tener que esperar años y enfrentarse a la incertidumbre de la recuperación. ”

CRT Special Investments, ha sido un participante líder en el mercado de reclamos de Stanford , cuenta con la experiencia y conocimiento del mercado , no sólo para ofrecer liquidez a los clientes que buscan vender , sino también para estructurar préstamos y negociaciones para aquellos clientes que aún no están listos para vender sus reclamos. CRT Special Investments es una filial de CRT Capital Group LLC ( “CRT “), una sociedad de valores con sede en Stamford , Connecticut, EUA que ha mantenido a los clientes institucionales desde hace más de 20 años. CRT proporciona investigación a profundidad sobre el procedimiento de quiebra de MF Global y compra venta de reclamos.

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

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Stanford Victims Coalition Update Regarding SIPC

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.............


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

Thursday, November 21, 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.


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

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

LEGISLATIVE ALERT 11/12

LEGISLATION TO BE INTRODUCED IN HOUSE, HEARINGS SET  BILL ALSO BEING PREPARED IN SENATE!

    * Garrett & Maloney to introduce legislation in House. Senator Vitter current lead sponsor in Senate
    * House hearings set for 11/21
    * Selective grassroots to commence
    * 5th Anniversary media needs victims willing to be interviewed by media

Dear NIAP Member & Madoff Investor,

 Greetings.  I am excited to announce that SIPC legislation is to be introduced later this week or early next followed by Congressional hearings on Thursday, Nov 21. The legislation is to be jointly introduced by Congressman Garrett (NJ) and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY).  Similar legislation is expected to be introduced shortly in the Senate as well, consistent with the strategy laid out by Congressman Garrett in the last Congress.

The intention is to have the legislation introduced by approximately 15 co-sponsors, and followed by an extensive outreach effort via Garrett’s and Maloney’s offices, our lobby team and our own grassroots efforts to ramp up sponsorship numbers.

 The specific bill language is still going through final stages, and a bill number and title will be finalized shortly. We will make the bill public as soon as we receive the final version.  As you probably know, it prevents clawback of the innocent, insures SIPC payments to $500,000 based on account statements, and gives the SEC authority over SIPC.

 After hearings, the bill will be moved to a mark-up session in the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, voted on and moved to the Financial Services Committee.

  Next Steps on Grassroots. We will want to focus our House grassroots efforts on key Financial Services Committee members, as well as other influential House members, particularly those in districts or states with sizeable Madoff and Stanford victim constituents.  Our Senate strategy will focus on Senate members on the Senate Banking Committee and other key Senate members.

  The first wave of Grassroots letters and communications however will go out to those who are sponsoring the legislation at introduction, thanking them for their support and encouraging their reaching out to their colleagues to do the same.

 Stay Tuned!  In the coming days we will be providing more detailed information, as well as laying out the details for the grassroots outreach.  We will also undertake a rapid fundraising campaign to assist costs of Congressional hearings and grassroots support.

  We look forward to working with all previous and current leaders in this effort as well.

  Game on!
  Most sincerely,
 Ron Stein, CFP
 President, NIAP

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Victims Needed for Media interviews & Congressional testimony

Volunteers and Funds Needed. Please assist us in whatever way you can!

Email us at: djmionis@investoraction.org
              rstein@investoraction.org

Call us at: 800-323-9250

www.investoraction.org
www.fixsipcnow.com

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

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Is the SEC Here to Help Defrauded Victims in a Ponzi Scheme, Or Not?

Posted by Kathy Bazoian Phelps

 The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) plays an active role in protecting the rights of investors. Its own mission statement is:

    The mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.

Yet, in the high-profile Ponzi scheme case of R. Allen Stanford and Stanford Financial Bank, the SEC is finding itself aligned both for and against efforts to recover funds for the benefit of the defrauded victims. Positions taken by the SEC in two different pending litigation matters in the Stanford case may have polar opposite effects on the financial outcome for defrauded investors.

 One case, SEC v. SIPC, now pending in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, involves a battle between the SEC and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) over whether the defrauded victims are “customers” under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) and therefore entitled to payment from SIPC. This is the first time that the SEC has ever commenced an action seeking SIPC coverage for investors. The lower court found that the Stanford investors are not entitled to SIPC coverage, but the SEC continues to champion the cause of the investors in the Circuit Court seeking SIPC coverage for them.

 The other case, Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice et al., involves an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of whether Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) bars lawsuits by a class of victims against third parties to recover their losses from alleged wrongdoers. The Fifth Circuit held that the claims against two law firms, an insurance brokerage firm and a financial services firm could proceed despite SLUSA. The U.S. Government, on behalf of the SEC and other agencies, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the investor claims should be barred under SLUSA. If the Government’s position prevails, defrauded victims will be denied recovery on their claims.

 In what would be a worst case scenario for the investors, the SEC will lose in SEC v. SIPC so that investors will be denied “customer” status and protection, and the Government’s position in the Chadbourne & Park case will prevail, denying investors the ability to use self-help to sue alleged wrongdoers.

 At a quick glance, it seems that the SEC is on the wrong side of the SLUSA fight in Chadbourne & Park, given the potentially adverse consequences for investors if the SEC’s position is adopted. But perhaps the issue has more do with the way that the applicable statutes are written and interpreted than with any intent on the part of the SEC.

 In Chadbourne & Park, the principal question to be considered by the Supreme Court is:

    Does the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. 77p(b), 78bb(f)(1), prohibit private class actions based on state law only where the alleged purchase or sale of a covered security is “more than tangentially related” to the “heart, crux or gravamen” of the alleged fraud?

SLUSA prohibits a state law class action alleging a purchase or sale of a covered security “in connection with” an untrue statement or omission of material fact. A “covered class action” is a lawsuit in which damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 people, and a “covered security” is a nationally traded security that is listed on a regulated national exchange. So the question remaining is: What does “in connection with” mean?

The target defendants in the litigation at issue argue that “in connection with” covers the following two factual scenarios that touch “covered securities” in the Stanford case: (1) that Stanford lied to purchasers of CDs and told them that the CDs were backed by investments in stocks; and (2) that some of the CD purchasers must have liquidated stocks in order to purchase the CDs.

 The Fifth Circuit did not agree that either of these two scenarios were sufficient to bar claims under SLUSA, holding that the purchase or sale of a covered security must be more than tangentially related “to the ‘heart,’ ‘crux,’ or ‘gravamen’ of the defendants’ fraud.”  The Fifth Circuit held that the claims against the defendants could proceed.

 The Government, on the other hand, has taken the position in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court that the relevant language of SLUSA was taken from the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and should be read consistently with similar language in Section 10(b) of the Act.  In urging a broad reading of the words “in connection with,” the Government contends that:

    [A] broad reading is essential to the achievement of Congress’s purpose in enacting both Section 10(b) and SLUSA.  Under Section 10(b), it enhances the SEC’s ability to protect the securities markets against a variety of different forms of fraud. Under SLUSA, it furthers Congress’s objective of preventing the use of state-law class actions to circumvent the restrictions by the PSLRA [Private Securities Litigation Reform Act] and by this Court’s decisions constraining private securities-fraud suits.

In an amicus brief taking the contrary position, 16 law professors directly challenge the concept of broadening the application of SLUSA to include the certificates of deposit purchased by the Stanford investors. They note that the certificates of deposit are not themselves covered securities and argue that therefore SLUSA should be “interpreted in a way that does not preclude investors from using state courts to pursue claims seeking traditional state law remedies for acts that do not involve covered securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws.”

 To stress their position that SLUSA should not apply to non-covered bank-issued securities that may be potentially backed by covered securities, the 16 law professors float the following hypothetical class action claims, among others, that they contend would improperly be prohibited under SLUSA if interpreted that broadly:

    * "A car dealer who lies to customers about the terms of a car loan, where the car loans are securitized in a pool and interests in the pool are sold off as covered securities."
    * "A credit card company that securitizes credit card balances fails to pay appropriate wages to telephone operators and answering card holder questions, and the operators file a state class action alleging violations of state wage and hour laws."
    * "A nationally-traded securities clearing firm engages in sex discrimination in compensating clerical workers for work done in the securities office, and the workers file a sex discrimination class action law suit."

In summary, where the Supreme Court draws the lines on the application of SLUSA could have a significant impact on a variety of state law claims that may or may not have much to do with securities. The SEC stands behind a broad reading of SLUSA under the pretense of protecting the securities market, but its position appears to have the consequence of harming, not helping, defrauded victims by blocking state law damage claims.

 The issues are undoubtedly complicated, and there are a variety of competing considerations. From the investors’ perspective, however, they can just add this to the list of roadblocks to getting their money back.

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

Monday, November 4, 2013

Receiver files 6th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan


Receiver files 6th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan - On November 4, 2013, the Receiver filed his 6th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 6th 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 6th. Schedule, please click here.

And what happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

And who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Stanford 20/20 for 20: Reliving Embarrassing Moment in England's Cricket History

BY FREDDIE WILDE (FEATURED COLUMNIST) ON OCTOBER 31, 2013
Five years ago today, a Kevin Pietersen-led England played against a team called the "Stanford Superstars," which was made up of West Indian cricketers in a Twenty20 match in which the winners would pocket $20 million.
The extravaganza was funded by Allen Stanford, a multi-millionaire who lived in the Caribbean
The match was intended to be the first of five—one played annually—but when Stanford was arrested for fraud and sentenced to 110 years in prison, the ECB terminated their contract with the financier and the tournament was consigned to the annals of history. 
Five years on from one of the most embarrassing sagas in English cricket history, B/R takes a look back at the whole gruesome escapade. 
The ECB were keen to enter in a deal with Stanford to help find a solution to the growing problem of the Indian Premier League. 
The T20 league in India offered English players unparalleled riches, and the ECB were concerned about losing control of their players during the six-week tournament that clashed with the beginning of the English season.
The Stanford Super Series therefore posed a handy alternative that offered England's players the opportunity to earn significant sums of money in an ECB-endorsed tournament that could be played at a time in the calendar in which there were few schedule clashes. 
In light of what happened later, with Stanford's arrest, his gratuitous welcome onto the Nursery Ground with his helicopter at Lord's, the Home of Cricket, was cringeworthy and embarrassing.  

Flanked by ECB chairman Giles Clarke and West Indian cricket legend Sir Gary Sobers, Stanford prowled around the Lord's Nursery Ground. 
He had been involved in West Indian cricket before the launch of the Stanford Super Series—running the domestic T20 tournament in the Caribbean and putting together a group of "legends" to endorse his project. 
West Indian cricket has a rich heritage. The fact that legends such as Sobers and Sir Viv Richards were drawn into the whole facade is a huge shame.  
Perhaps the most enduring image of the saga will be Stanford flanked by cricketing head-honchos and former players, standing tall, and beaming behind a glass box of $20 million. Whether the money was even real is unknown, in the light of the fraud scandal, but it was a grotesque show of wealth and power. 
Stephen Brenkley, writing prior to the tournament in The Independent, was prescient in his assessment of the series:
Of all the short-form matches currently being organised, the conclusion is easily reached that Stanford Superstars v England is the most offensive. It has no context as a proper sporting competition, it is neither country versus country, club versus club or invitation XI versus invitation XI. It is a rococo hybrid. It has money but nothing else going for it. 
When the series eventually got underway, the walking, talking disaster continued. 
The pitches were poor, the cricket was shoddy and the show was horribly stage-managed. Cricket was Stanford's toy and he was enjoying playing with it. 
Perhaps the most embarrassing moment of the tournament was when Emily Prior—wife of England wicket keeper Matt Prior—was seen bouncing on the knee of Stanford. who looked like the cat who had got the cream. 
To top the whole thing off, England lost the $20 million match, thus taking home nothing and rendering the initial point of getting involved unfulfilled. 
It wasn't even a close match, with the Stanford Superstars romping home by 10 wickets. England looked disenchanted, fed up and wholly unimpressed with the occasion. And who could blame them? 

The Stanford Saga should be remembered as one of the most embarrassing moments in cricket history, and an accurate reflection of an era dictated to by money and greed. 


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

Friday, October 25, 2013

Receiver files 5th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan


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.

And what happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

And who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan


Receiver files 4th Schedule of Payments to be Made Pursuant to the Interim Distribution Plan - On October 17, 2013, the Receiver filed his 4th Schedule of distribution payments with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The 4th 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 4th. Schedule, please click here.

And what happened with the IRS?
Let’s remember the eagerness of some victims to manipulate and deceive the rest of the victims:





Shame you!!!

And who have their own agenda? Oh yeah! The others... Only the others...



What is built with lies and evil intention will collapse sooner or later.



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