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/