SEC lifts suspension for Dallas attorney accused of helping Stanford’s $7 billion fraud avoid detection

By Michael Lindenberger
mlindenberger@dallasnews.com

Shown here in 2002, former SEC enforcement official Spencer Barasch has been reinstated to practice law before the Security and Exchange Commission, about one year after he was suspended. Government officials say he helped steer investigators the other way when convicted schemer R. Allen Stanford was defrauding investors of $7 billion.

The Dallas lawyer accused by the U.S. Department of Justice’s inspector general of single-handedly using his position at the Securities and Exchange Commission to let R. Allen Stanford get away with defrauding investors of $7 billion is free to practice law again before the SEC.

Spencer Barasch worked 17 years for the SEC, including seven years as its chief of enforcement at the division office located in Fort Worth. After he resigned in 2005, he began representing Stanford before the SEC.

The inspector general’s report concluded that over the years as enforcement chief he had repeatedly denied federal investigators’ pleas to investigate suspicious aspects of Stanford’s offshore investment accounts, which later were determined to have been frauds.

Barasch denied wrongdoing at the time. He paid $50,000 to the Department of Justice to settle civil claims alleging impropriety.

Stanford was indicted in 2009 and convicted last year. He is serving a 110-year sentence in federal prison.

Last year, the SEC suspended Barasch from practicing before the commission, and said he could apply for readmission in one year. Barasch’s attorney released a statement at the time saying that Barasch had accepted the suspension to save on legal bills.

Barasch was head of enforcement for the SEC’s Fort Worth office from 1998 to April 2005. After leaving the government, he represented Stanford before the SEC in 2006.

A 2010 article in The Dallas Mornings News about the inspector general’s report included this anecdote:
In 2005, the report said, an SEC staff attorney presented the agency’s latest findings at a regional meeting of securities law enforcers attended by Barasch. The audit showed growing concern that the alleged Ponzi scheme was growing and putting billions of dollars at risk.
During the presentation, Barasch was said to look “annoyed.” Afterward, he reportedly told the attorney he had “no interest” in bringing action against Stanford.
“I thought I’d turned in a good piece of work and was talking about it to significant players in the regulatory community,” Victoria Prescott, the attorney, said in the report. “And I no sooner sit down, shut up and the meeting ended, but then I got pulled aside and was told this has already been looked at and we’re not going to do it.”
Some former colleagues defended him, however, with one telling The News that, at worst, he had used bad judgment.

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/