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/

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/

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/

Stanford's Civil Tactic Makes SEC Indignant: April 11, 2013

Stanford's Civil Tactic Makes SEC Indignant
By DAVID LEE
ShareThis

DALLAS (CN) - R. Allen Stanford must be held civilly liable for his massive Ponzi scheme, the Securities and Exchange Commission argued, scoffing at the implication his criminal trial was unfair.
In a 2009 federal complaint, the agency accused Stanford of running an $8 billion Ponzi scheme through the sale of certificates of deposit. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor then entered a temporary restraining order, froze his assets, and appointed a receiver.
Stanford later faced a criminal trial for the scheme, and a jury convicted him in 2012 on 13 of 14 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud. He was sentenced in June to 110 years in federal prison.
With the SEC now seeking partial summary judgment on its civil claims, Stanford moved on March 25 for a time extension to secure sealed exhibits from his criminal trial.
The SEC replied Monday that this extension should be denied.
"First, for all the reasons noted above, these pleadings cannot add any substantive information relevant to the commission's motion for summary judgment because they relate to arguments that have already been rejected in Stanford's criminal case," it said in a six-page response. "In fact, the materials were attachments to a motion for new trial that was denied. The only reason for the Court to examine these pleadings would be to re-examine the fully litigated decisions made in the criminal case. The pleadings cannot give any basis to ignore the well-established precepts of collateral estoppel that demonstrate Stanford's civil liability in this parallel proceeding."
The SEC said Stanford has offered no basis to avoid the "estoppel effect" of his criminal conviction.
"In his response, Stanford admits, as he must, that he has been criminally convicted based on the very conduct that is at issue in this case," the filing states. "And he, in essence, concedes that the elements of collateral estoppel have been met here, including the fact that the same issues were at stake. His only argument is that the criminal trial did not provide him with a full and fair opportunity to litigate the common issues and that, as a result, collateral estoppel does not apply."
It is "beyond dispute" that Stanford had full and fair opportunity to try the criminal case against him, the agency added.
"As he admits, he was represented by competent counsel," the reply states. "His trial lasted over thirty days and over thirty witnesses testified. As even a cursory review of the docket sheet from that proceeding demonstrates, Stanford's criminal trial was fully and fairly litigated, even if Stanford does not like the results."
Stanford had even moved in October 2010 for change of venue based on the same pretrial publicity of which he complains now, the SEC said.
"He had a fair and full opportunity to litigate his motion for continuance," it wrote. "Stanford has pointed to no case suggesting that in circumstances like this collateral estoppel does not apply. Nor could he."
The SEC also sued several Stanford-controlled entities, including Antigua-based Stanford International Bank, Houston-based broker-dealer/investment adviser Stanford Group Co., and investment adviser Stanford Capital Management. The SEC also sued Stanford International Bank CFO James Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt, chief investment officer of Stanford Financial Group.
At the time of the suit, former SEC enforcement chief Linda Chatman Thomsen had called the conspiracy "a massive fraud based on false promises and fabricated historical return data to prey on investors."
Rose Romero, former regional director of the SEC's Fort Worth division, called it "a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world." Romero is currently a partner with Thompson Knight in Dallas.
The SEC says Stanford International Bank sold roughly $8 billion of CDs by promising improbable and unsubstantiated high interest rates. These rates were supposedly earned through bank's unique investment strategy, which purportedly allowed the bank to achieve double-digit returns on its investments for 15 years.


Source: http://sivg.org/forum/view_topic.php?t=eng&id=59

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